Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Calvinistic Methodist or Presbyterian Church of Wales Bill [Lords.]

Barking Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Bills to be read a Second time.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Chester (Altrincham Division), in the room of Sir Cyril Atkinson, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court of Justice.—[Captain Margesson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the resolution of the council of the Federation of British Furnishing Textile Manufacturers, of which a copy was sent to him, with regard to the menace to the textile industry of Great Britain arising out of Japanese competition both at home and overseas, and asking for the exclusion from this country and from the Colonies of products produced by labour which is remunerated
at rates with which this country cannot contend; and what action is being taken in the matter?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Japanese manufacturers are preparing to export to this country Bill quantities not only of manufactured goods but of manufacturing machinery of all kinds; that in the Japanese engineering industry the employes work 60 hours a week for wages of 5s. 9d. for labourers, 14s. for fitters, and 25s. 3d. for skilled mechanics; and what action he proposes to take to protect British workers from bring reduced to the same level?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am aware of the growing extent of Japanese competition and of the low level of wages ruling for industrial workers in Japan, and, as I have previously stated, the whole question is under consideration. I would remind my hon. Friends that the question of the proper measure of protection for industry in this country is one which falls to be considered and decided in the first instance by the Import Duties Advisory Committee in the light of all the relevant factors.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wage for A skilled female operative in Japan is about 9d. per day; and is he also aware that in Malaya, which was previously a British market, Japanese cotton print goods are now being sold at 2d. a yard, whereby 75 per cent. of this class of goods in Malaya is now supplied by Japan?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; those facts are known to us.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the last part of Question No. 10:
What action he proposes to take to protect British workers from being reduced to the same level?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We are taking the necessary steps to prevent unfair competition against our own manufactured goods being extended within British territory.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to know what are the steps that are being taken. The right hon. Gentleman says he is taking the necessary steps; what kind of steps does he call necessary?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think my hon. Friend was not here when I announced that we had already given notice of the withdrawal of the West African Colonies from the Anglo-Japanese Trade Agreement. That was done with the object; of freeing the West African Colonies so that they could give a preference to British goods.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Does the same apply to Ceylon, where 90 per cent. of the cotton goods are imported from Japan?

Captain POWER: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before any Anglo-Japanese trade agreement is settled he will place Parliament in possession of the main outlines so as to ensure that the interests of Lancashire are fully safeguarded and that nothing is approved which will interfere with the Chinese market?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is at present no question of the negotiation of a trade agreement between the two Governments.

SWITZERLAND (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the procedure adopted by Switzerland in prohibiting the importation of Japanese goods; and, if so, will he give details?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Switzerland does not prohibit the importation of goods from any country. Restrictions are imposed upon the importation of a few classes of goods, and in those cases quotas are allotted to Japan in the same way as to any other foreign country.

Mr. LUNN: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the effect on industry of the embargo placed on the import of worsted yarns from this country into Switzerland, he will consider taking steps for its removal?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The import of woollen and worsted yarns into Switzerland was made subject to licence on 23rd May last, but I have, as yet, no information as to the extent of the limitation imposed. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Swiss Government have made use of the quota system for the limitation of imports in the case of a variety of goods, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by
protesting against its application in particular cases, unless there is evidence that it entails discrimination against this country.

CHINA (BRITISH PATENTS).

Mr. NUNN: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Ministry of Industry of the Government of China, in reply to an inquiry from the Greater Shanghai Chamber of Commerce, to the effect that, as no Chinese patent law has as yet been enacted and promulgated, articles patented in foreign countries enjoy no patent rights in China; and whether he will make representations to the Government of China in order to afford protection to British patents?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have seen a statement in the Press reporting a ruling in this sense. The matter is under consideration with a view to discussion with the Chinese Government when an appropriate opportunity arises.

RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION).

Mr. DREWE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of butter, condensed milk, eggs and poultry have been inported from Russia Since the embargo has been in force; and whether, in view of the present glut of supplies, he will give an undertaking not to grant further licences?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Condensed milk and eggs are not among the classes of goods covered by the prohibition, and the information desired is not at present available. 29,286 cwts. of butter, and poultry, to the value of approximately £11,000, have been imported from the Soviet Union under licence Since the prohibition took effect. These licences have been granted because substantial payment had been made for the goods concerned before the proclamation was issued. I cannot give the undertaking asked for, and I would remind my hon. Friend that the prohibition was imposed solely to secure the lives and liberties of certain British subjects.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is there any period during which the condition as to substantial payment applies?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We do not name any special period, but we examine every case critically.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: May I ask why the embargo is not made effective; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider adding eggs and condensed milk to the embargo?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It would be a great pity for us to take steps which would punish our own fellow-subjects. Really, the prohibition is a penal act taken against another Power.

Mr. DREWE: May I ask why agriculture should be treated in an exceptional way as compared with any other industry, in view of the fact that our markets are so depressed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend need not have that misapprehension. I assure him that we treat every industry alike. No special exception is made in the case of agriculture.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: In view of the great inconvenience that is being caused to business people in this country, and the great loss of trade in general, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider lifting the embargo?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Not until the conditions have been complied with.

COTTON EXPORTS (COLONIES).

Captain DOWER: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade to what chief causes are due the fact that British cotton manufacture exports to Hong Kong and British Malaya during the first four months of this year were more than 50 per cent. less than exports of cotton manufactures to these two British Colonies during the first four months of 1932; and what steps he is taking to remedy the situation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The statistics showing the imports of cotton piece goods into Hong Kong and Malaya during January and February of this year suggest that in the case of Hong Kong the decline in imports from the United Kingdom was accompanied by a general decline in total imports from all sources. There was in these months a considerable increase in the quantity of cotton piece goods imported into British Malaya from Japan.
The question of Japanese competition in textiles is at present under discussion with the Japanese Government.

Captain DOWER: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade by what date, as a result of the withdrawal of the West African Colonies from the Anglo-Japanese trade agreement, it will be possible for those Colonies to give preference to British cotton exports?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It will be possible for these Colonies to impose higher duties on Japanese than on British goods on 16th May, 1934.

BRITISH GOODS (FRENCH SURTAX).

Mr. O'CONNOR: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any reply to his representations to the French Government on the subject of the discriminatory surtax against British goods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No official reply has yet been received, but I understand that the matter is under active consideration by the French Government.

Mr. O'CONNOR: In view of the fact that it is now over two months Since my right hon. Friend made strenuous representations to the French Government, could he give an indication to the French Government that we now intend to act?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The undertaking given by the French Government was that they were going to take the necessary steps to expedite a reply, and I hope that they will fulfil that promise.

HERRING INDUSTRY.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the case of the herring industry was considered in the negotiations leading to the various trade agreements which this country has recently made with foreign countries; and if he can explain why no provision is made in these agreements for any assistance to the herring-curing industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The agreement with Sweden secures freedom from duty for salted herrings produced in the United Kingdom on importation into Sweden. Denmark, Norway and Iceland do not provide markets for herrings from the United Kingdom. As regards Germany, I would
refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to him on the 16th May by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Sir M. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this industry has had nothing but kicks during the last year as the result of this tariff bargaining process, and can nothing be done to help it?

IMPORT DUTIES, AUSTRALIA (ELASTIC FABRICS).

Mr. PERKINS: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the Australian Government have recently increased the duty by 35 per cent. on English-made elastic fabric, and that, allowing for freight charges, insurance charge, primage, exchange, duties and sales tax, it costs a British producer 92f per cent. to land elastic fabrics in Australia; and whether he will make representations to the Australian Government in view of the fact that it was agreed at Ottawa that Australian duties would not exceed a level which would permit United Kingdom producers to compete?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am aware that the Commonwealth Government have recently imposed a duty of 35 per cent. on United Kingdom-made elastic fabric of less than one inch in width as against a duty on similar foreign-made fabric of 55 per cent. I understand that this duty was imposed in accordance with a recommendation of the Commonwealth Tariff Tribunal after receiving evidence from the United Kingdom interests concerned. I have no information to show that in making this recommendation the tribunal failed to take into account the principle laid down in Article 10 of the Trade Agreement with His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr. PERKINS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this recent action by the Australian Government was in direct opposition to the whole spirit of the Ottawa Agreements, and will he explain to the Australian Government that it is impossible for this country to continue to buy her agricultural produce unless she is prepared to buy from us?

Mr. THOMAS: It would be better to leave it where the hon. Member put it.

Mr. PERKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?

Mr. THOMAS: The Australian authorities, I understand, read the OFFICIAL REPORT.

ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY.

Mr. LEVY (for Mr. REMER): 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the notice to determine the application of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty applies to all British territories?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The object of he notice which has been given is to terminate the adherence of the British territories in West Africa to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty.

Mr. LEVY: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, I beg to give notice, on behalf of my hon. Friend, that we shall raise this matter on the Adjournment on Friday.

FRENCH CHAMPAGNE (IMPORTS).

Mr. D. GRENFELL (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES): 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give figures for the imports of French champagne wine for the first three months of 1932 and 1933, respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total imports into this country of champagne wine in bottles registered during the first three months of 1932 and 1933 as consigned from France amounted to 26,732 gallons and 53,735 gallons, of a declared value of £50,738 and £106,571, respectively.

WOOL AND WOOLLEN EXPORTS (CHINA).

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause representations to be made to the Government of China with the object of the withdrawal or reduction of the Chinese tariff on woollen imports from this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: A revised tariff came into force in China on 22nd May. I am obtaining particulars by telegram, and as soon as they are received they will be carefully examined to see whether representations on behalf of the export trade of this country are called for.

Sir J. HASLAM: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the House the volume and value of our exports of wool and woollen goods to China for the years 1929 and 1932, respectively?

The following table shows the quantity and declared value of the domestic exports from the United Kingdom of the undermentioned commodities registered during the years 1929 and 1932 as consigned to China (excluding Hong Kong, Macao and leased territories).

Description.
Unit of quantity.
1929.
1932.


Quantity.
Declared Value.
Quantity.
Declared Value.





£

£


Wool, raw, waste and noils
Cental of 100 lbs.
24
436
625
3,425


Woollen rags, applicable to other purposes than manurial.
Cwt.
—
—
198
986


Wool tops and flocks
Cental of 100 lbs.
14
18
2,079
12,824


Woollen and worsted yarns
Lb.
6,128,168
1,015,192
5,850,587
608,446


Woollen and worsted manufactures (except apparel):







Woollen and worsted tissues (a)
Sq. yd.
8,005,117
1,384,537
3,906,616
491,332


Other sorts
—
—
99,564
—
24,782


(a) Excluding flannels, pile fabrics, damasks, etc., which are included with other sorts of woollen and worsted manufactures.

CANADIAN NATIONAL EXHIBITION, TORONTO.

Mr. LYONS: 34.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, and to what extent, His Majesty's Government will participate in the forthcoming Canadian National Exhibition to be held at Toronto?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Department of Overseas Trade proposes to have, as has been customary in recent years, a commercial information bureau at the exhibition under the direction of His Majesty's Trade Commissioner at Toronto. I may add that, as in the past, steps are being taken by the Federation of British Industries to maintain the fullest representation possible of United Kingdom manufactures.

Mr. LYONS: Can the hon. And gallant Member say whether his Department in England is co-operating with industry in this country with reference to their representation in the exhibition?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

COAST EROSION.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to show that a sufficient measure of agreement now exists, to enable him to proceed with legislation providing for the prevention of coast erosion?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

Captain MACDONALD: What does the right hon. Gentleman consider to be a sufficient measure of agreement to enable him to proceed with legislation in regard to this very important matter?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider getting the landlords whose land is preserved to pay for it?

WATERLESS GASHOLDERS.

Mrs. SHAW: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the communication sent to him from the Uddingston Ratepayers' and Electors' Committee regarding the safety of a waterless gasholder recently erected by
the Lanarkshire County Council at Uddingston gasworks; and if he can give any information as to the safety of this type of gasholder?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have seen the communication to which the hon. Lady refers. I am awaiting a report by the Institution of Gas Engineers regarding the recent disaster in Germany in which this type of gasholder was involved.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (YEOMANRY CAMPS).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 19.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the results of the yeomanry camps which are now being held this year are satisfactory in respect of the attendances?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Only three units had completed their annual training in camp up to last Sunday, and the attendance returns have not yet been received. I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as the information is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

NATIONAL RECORDS.

Mr. GUY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make in quiries to ascertain if any of the Scottish national records are at present in the Public Record Office, London; and, if so, will he take immediate steps to have them returned to Scotland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): There are in the Public Record Office several Scottish papers which were removed to London in 1291 and a number of volumes and Departmental papers affecting Scotland for periods from the l7th to the 19th century. I think that this question might well be raised when the contemplated arrangement of the Records in the Register House for which provision is now being made is further advanced.

Mr. GUY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these National records are being retained in England contrary to an express Treaty obligation?

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir.

Mr. McENTEE: Is it proposed to make any charge for storage?

Mr. GUY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, Since the appointment in September, 1928, of the keeper of the records and registers of Scotland, he has received from him, prior to July, 1932, any report or reports on the said records and registers; if so, whether such report or reports have been printed or otherwise published; and, if not, whether he will now arrange for their publication as a White Paper or otherwise?

Sir G. COLLINS: There is no statutory provision for periodical reports by the Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland; and while reports are made by the Keeper from time to time on matters of interest for the information of the Secretary of State I do not consider it necessary to arrange for their publication.

Mr. GUY: Is it not advisable to have the annual report published?

Sir G. COLLINS: No, the matters referred to in the report do not seem to be of sufficient public importance to justify their publication, but I shall be happy to show the report to the hon. Member.

ROYAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE, GLASGOW (APPOINTMENT).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the proposed appointment of Sir Arthur Huddleston as director of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow, was only carried at a meeting of the governors by nine votes to eight; whether, in view of the resentment felt in Glasgow at this selection, he will defer ratifying the appointment until an inquiry is held into the reasons for nominating for this position a man with no technical knowledge or experience of Scottish industry; and whether he will state what pension Sir Arthur Huddleston receives as a retired officer of the Sudan Civil Service and what salary he is to be paid if appointed director of the technical college?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend has no official information as to the details of the voting on the
appointment in question. The selection of a director is primarily a matter for the governors of the college, who are representative of the industrial and educational interests of Glasgow and the West of Scotland, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason for withholding his approval of their choice. The salary which the governors propose to pay to the new director is £l,250 per annum. Following the usual practice with regard to those in receipt of pensions, my right hon. Friend does not propose to make any inquiry as to any sum which Sir Arthur Huddleston may be receiving in respect of his past services elsewhere.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is there any truth in the statement, very current in Glasgow, that Sir Arthur Huddleston has been dumped down on Glasgow by a very prominent Member of the Cabinet in order that someone may get a knighthood in return for his friend getting his job?

Mr. SKELTON: I have no information about this interesting canard.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that this is a very serious allegation—I will make it outside if necessary—will the Secretary of State institute an inquiry, and see if there is something shady going on behind his appointment, which has caused such an outcry in Glasgow?

Mr. MAXTON: Will this man be eligible for a pension under the rules of the Scottish Education Superannuation Fund?

Mr. SKELTON: I could not answer that question without inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINERS' WELFARE FUND.

Colonel CHAPMAN: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total amount that has been paid into the Miners' Welfare Fund; how has it been expended, what is the present unexpended balance; and is the fund available for building houses for aged miners?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the reply is rather long and includes a number of figures, I propose with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The total amount paid into the fund up to 23rd May, 1933, was £13,463,709, made up as follows:



£


Output Welfare Levy
10,994,841


Royalties Welfare Levy
1,355,000


Interest
1,113,868



£13,463,709

These payments have been credited as follows:



£


District Fund
9,099,779


General Fund
1,885,847


Baths Fund
2,478,083



£13,463,709

The amount paid out of the fund to the same date was £11,214,227, on the following purposes:



£


Recreation
4,430,171


Health
3,031,896


Education
783,323


Research
756,344


Pithead Baths
1,900,291


Canteens (Pithead Baths) and Pit Welfare
41,364


Administrative Expenses
270,838



£11,214,227

The unexpended balance at that date amounted to £2,249,482, but of that amount £1,404,762 had been alocated for schemes for Pithead Baths and other purposes which had been contracted for or had reached a definite stage of development and a large part of the remainder of £844,720 had been earmarked for specific purposes by either the Central Committee or the District Committees.

As regards the concluding part of the question, £25,000 has been allocated from the fund for the purpose of building houses for aged miners, but the Comp-. troller and Auditor-General has raised the question whether such allocations are permissible under the Act. The Chelmsford Committee of Inquiry considered that such allocations should be allowed and have recommended that in any further legislation relative to the fund this should be made clear.

EXPORTS (ARGENTINA).

Mr. ROBINSON: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether discussions between the British Government and the Argentine Government with a view to improving the British coal market in the Argentine have yet commenced; and, if not, what preliminary steps have been taken?

Mr. E. BROWN: Coal is dealt with in Paragraph 6 of the Protocol to the Convention of 1st May. It is expected that negotiations upon this and other matters will be commenced in about a fortnight's time in Buenos Aires.

Mr. SMITHERS: Would not the export trade be increased if the provisions for the quota export of coal were made more elastic?

Mr. BROWN: It is rather difficult to answer that question in the affirmative Since during recent years our share of the Argentine import has been about 90 per cent.

STATISTICS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many manshifts were worked at all the coal mines in Great Britain for the years 1921 and 1932: and the total output of each year?

Mr. E. BROWN: Comparable figures of output and manshifts worked in 1921 are not available. In 1922, however, the estimated number of manshifts worked by all workers in and about coal mines in Great Britain was 277,000,000 and the output of saleable coal was 249,500,000 tons. The corresponding figures for 1932 were 190,000,000 manshifts and 208,750,000 tons.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 28.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, having regard to the apparent conflict in the medical evidence and the history of the case, he will consider authorising a special inquiry into the complaints submitted by Mr. W. E. Mates, 111, Bedford Street, Newton, Sydney, New South Wales, with regard to the claim for war pension by his father, Mr. N. G. Mates, 46,477/H, residing at 33, Hardwick Street, Dublin?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major C. Tryon): This case has been reviewed on more than one occasion Since it was determined, on the man's appeal, by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in 1923. There is, I am advised, no evidence which would justify the further inquiry suggested.

Mr. GRENFELL: Has the Minister given this claimant sufficient opportunity and assistance to enable him to put his case properly? Is he satisfied that he knows all the facts of the case?

Major TRYON: I can give the hon. Member the facts. The man served for eight months only in the Curragh Camp, I believe, as a servant in the officers' mess. The case was decided by the tribunal, whose decision is final, and his son is under a misapprehension as to the nature of the iliness from which the father suffered. It was erysipelas.

Mr. LECKIE: 29.
asked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Florence Hughes, widow, of 45, New Mill Street, Walsall, whose husband died in February last, he then being in receipt of a disability pension for the loss of a leg and eye; and whether, seeing that the coroner's verdict, as a result of a post.-mortem inquiry, was that he died from causes brought on by War service as shown by shrapnel found in the brain, he will give consideration to the claims of this widow and make her an allowance to cover the expense she has been put to or, alternatively, grant her a widow's pension?

Major TRYON: I am inquiring further into the facts of this case and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. DENVILLE: 27.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many persons in receipt of pension have, during the past year, asked for a reconsideration of their cases; and what is the percentage in which alteration has been made?

Major TRYON: The records of the Department do not enable me to give the particulars asked for.

Mr. DENVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very great dissatisfaction exists in the country at the administration of the Pensions Department?

Major TRYON: No, Sir. My hon. Friend during the present Parliament has sent me only eight cases. In seven of them no action was found to be justifiable, and in the eighth an increase of pension was granted under the normal medical procedure.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ALIENS (ENTRY PERMITS).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that in Sussex application has been made to permit the admission of Italians to fill the key position of dyers in the manufacture of buttons owing to the impossibility of securing competent men locally; and will he consider the desirabilitw of trans ferring men from other parts of the country to fill these positions?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): In accordance with the usual practice in such cases, steps are being taken to verify as far as may be practicable that suitable labour is not already available in this country. I may add that such permits, where issued, are ordinarily made subject to the condition that British employes are taken into training.

Mr. THORNE: Is this a new industry that has been established in Sussex, and are we to understand that there is no one qualified either in Yorkshire or Lancashire?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not know that it is exactly a new industry. I think it is a new process.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, DURHAM.

Mr. LAWSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the number of claimants for transitional payments in the county of Durham Since the operation of the Order; the number who have received reduced payment; the number refused any payment; and the estimated saving resulting from the Order-in- Council?

Mr. HUDSON: I regret that the statistics do not enable me to give the number of separate claimants. The determinations in respect of applications for transitional payments in Durham
administrative county in the period 12th November, 1931, to 6th May, 1933, including renewals and revisions, were 624,773 at full rates and 87,614 at less than full rates, while in 12,666 cases the needs of the applicants were held not to justify payments. As regards the saving resulting from the Order-in-Council I regret that it is not practicable to make a reliable estimate for particular areas such as Durham County; an estimate for the country as a whole was given in the reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 30th March, 1933.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LICENSING (CLUBS).

Viscountess ASTOR: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is proposed to introduce legislation to carry out that part of the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing relating to clubs?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): No such legislation could be introduced this Session, and my right hon. Friend is not in a position to commit the Government in regard to the future.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, as there are so many Members who are deeply interested in this question, it would be a good thing to bring in a Bill dealing with the whole of the Report of the Royal Commission?

Mr. HACKING: Whether it is a good thing or not, the fact remains that there is no time this Session.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Government do not bring in part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which have been ruined by members of the drink trade in Committee upstairs?

Mr. HACKING: I do not admit that the Government have brought in part of it.

EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. PERKINS: 35.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will state the average cost per pupil for education in
elementary schools and secondary schools in Scotland and the similar cost for England?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The average cost per pupil for education in elementary schools in England and Wales in 1931 was £12 12s. 6d. The average cost per pupil in secondary schools maintained by local education authorities was £31 10s. gross, or £24 15s. net after deducting receipts from fees. I am asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary.of State for Scotland to say that on account of the intimate association between primary and secondary education in Scotland, it is not possible to state separately the cost of education of either type.

Mr. PERKINS: Can the Minister say whether it is a fact that it costs more to educate a Scotsman than an Englishman?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am unable to say what it costs in Scotland, because I cannot compare the figures with England.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS).

Mr. PRICE: 36.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether, in response to the Archbishops' appeal, the Commissioners propose to offer a loan from their resources to the State at a low rate of interest in order to give practical support in the abolition of slums, especially those standing on Church lands?

Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): Should the Government issue a loan for the purpose of slum clearances the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would certainly consider the question of subscribing.

COUNCIL HOUSES, ERPINGHAM (CONDITIONS OF TENANCY).

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that tenants of houses built by the Erpingham Rural District Council along the Norfolk coast are forbidden to take in visitors; and whether, having regard to the fact that this rule penalises a certain
section of the parishes thus affected, he will circularise local authorities deprecating this practice?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is aware that one of the conditions upon which the Erpingham Rural District Council have let their houses is that the tenants should not be allowed to take visitors without the consent of the council. The management of such houses is, under the Housing Act, 1925, vested in local authorities and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to circularise local authorities in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. THORNE: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that that condition is to remain and that a man is not to be entitled to take his mother-in-law into his house?

UNTENANTED HOUSES.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if his Department has any statistics to show the number of council houses which at the present moment are untenanted owing to the rents charged for them, to their inaccessibility, their limitation to types of tenants, and to other causes; and whether, in that case, he will suggest greater latitude in regard to leasing conditions?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has no statistics on the subject, but he has no reason to think that council houses which are, at the moment, untenanted for any reason, form more than a negligible proportion of the total number owned by local authorities. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

POPULATION FIGURES (CUMBERLAND).

Mr. MALLALIEU: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the population figures for mid-1932 for rural districts in Cumberland have not yet been issued by the Registrar-General, and that the reports of medical officers for the past year cannot properly be completed without these figures; and whether he will arrange for their publication without further delay?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: These figures were issued by the Registrar-General on the 25th instant.

SEWAGE DISPOSAL, HUYTON-WITH-ROBY (INQUIRY).

Mr. ROBINSON: 38.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state when the parties concerned may expect the publication of the results of the public inquiry into the Huyton-with-Roby Urban District Council sewerage scheme which was held on 28th February, 1933?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has approved this scheme in principle, subject to certain modifications designed to meet objections which have had to be discussed with representatives of the council. Sanction to the necessary loan will be issued when tenders have been received.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (ALIENS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recent disclosure in a case at the Marylebone Police Court that an alien who was fined for shop-lifting was in receipt of 10s. a week under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; and whether legislation will be introduced confining the benefits of this Act to British sub jects?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Contributory Pensions Acts, like the other British social insurance schemes, make no distinction between British subjects and aliens either as regards liability to pay contributions or as regards title to benefit. My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not my hon. Friend think that the burdens upon the British taxpayers in providing benefits for our own nationals are sufficiently heavy without providing those benefits for aliens?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Any foreign person in an insurable occupation contributes towards the benefit he receives.

MUNICIPAL OFFICES, WALTHAM-STOW (LOAN).

Mr. McENTEE: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the low rates of interest at which loans can now be raised by local authorities for public
works and the insufficient accommodation provided by the present municipal offices, he will be prepared to reconsider his refusal to sanction a loan to the Borough of Walthamstow for the purpose of erecting new municipal offices?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider a scheme for new municipal offices in Walthamstow, always provided that it is limited to what is required to meet the needs of the borough.

POOR LAW RELIEF, DURHAM.

Mr. LAWSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Health the terms of the letter sent by his Department to the Durham Public Assistance Committee in respect to their duties as relieving authorities?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend thinks it is generally undesirable to make public the terms of a letter addressed to a local authority before the local authority have had an opportunity of considering the letter.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one paragraph in the letter has already been interpreted publicly as meaning that the whole of the disability pension will be taken into consideration? Can he give the proper interpretation of the letter?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No interpretation of the paragraph is justified. The letter has not yet been published, and should not be published until the Committee have considered it.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. Gentleman say that the interpretation that the whole of the disability pension will be taken into consideration is an illegal interpretation?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: One cannot spend his time replying to reports in the Press.

Mr. BATEY: Was not the letter considered by the Public Assistance Committee last week?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It was issued on 19th May.

Mr. BATEY: And considered by the Public Assistance Committee last week.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, not according to my information.

WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. HALL-CALNE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any special industrial advisers are to be appointed to assist the British delegates at the World Economic Conference; and if so, whether he can state their names?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I am not at present in a position to add to the answer which I gave on Thursday last in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that proper and adequate steps will be taken to ensure that the industrial and producers' interests are not neglected by the Conference?

Mr. BALDWIN: The whole matter is under examination at present, and whether I shall ultimately be satisfied or not I do not know.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, before appointing industrial advisers, they will try to get better value for money than they got out of Ottawa?

CIVIL LIST.

Mr. HALL-CALNE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the increasing number of cases of distress among writers of distinction, he will take steps to make provision for increasing the number of pensions charged to the Civil List?

Mr. BALDWIN: The amount of new pensions which can be granted in any year is limited by the provisions of the Civil List Act. I regret that I can hold out no hope of amending legislation at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a number of industrial companies have a liability for unpaid Excess Profits Duty, in some cases equal to their total net liquid assets, and until that liability is removed it is not possible to raise fresh Capttal or to arrange for the necessary credit facilities with the banks;
and whether he will consider dealing with all outstanding cases of Excess Profits Duty in such a way as will remove the difficulties referred to with a view to saving such concerns being forced into liquidation?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As pointed out in the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee for the year 1928, the Board of Inland Revenue are already authorised to enter into composition settlements with concerns which have fallen into financial difficulties, provided that the sums accepted are not less than could have been recovered from those concerns if recourse had been had to legal action, for example to liquidation. The question whether any relaxation of this condition should he made is at present under consideration.

RUSSIAN DEBT.

Mr. DORAN: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Russian Government is raising a loan of 3,000,000,000 roubles, nomiNaily £300,000,000; and whether he is now prepared to press the Russian Government for payment of the amount due to this country or for a substantial part thereof?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of the Russian Debt to His Majesty's Government is one of the outstanding matters which will have to be discussed with the Soviet Government when a suitable opportunity presents itself. I do not, however, think that the proposal of the Soviet Government to raise an internal loan is necessarily relevant to the question of their foreign indebtedness.

Mr. McENTEE: Will the right Lon. Gentleman seriously consider sending the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Doran) as a negotiator?

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. LYONS: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the American Debt situation before the forthcoming Adjournment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot at present say whether I shall be able to make any statement on this matter before the Adjournment.

Mr. LYONS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the
statement so freely published this morning, that a decision upon this matter will be left to a free vote of the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Until I saw the statement in the Press this morning, I had never heard of such a suggestion.

Mr. LYONS: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the information he has given me, may I ask him whether he will allow this matter to be discussed by this House before a decision is made, and, if necessary, take additional time off the Whitsuntide Recess for the purpose?

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government not to repudiate in any event?

Mr. LAMBERT: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts due in sterling to America during the present financial year calculated at the present rate of exchange?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: At the rate of $3.98½ to £1, the amounts are £19,059,000 on 15th June, 1933, and £29,528,000 on 15th December, 1933, or approximately £48,600,000 in all.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what savings have been made by reason of the decision of the United States Government to accept gold obligations in paper dollars?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is always the option of paying in United States Government securities.

INCOME TAX.

Sir C. RAWSON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what increased amount of Income Tax will accrue to the revenue owing to the new basis of assessment of building societies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is estimated that under the new basis of assessment of building societies, entered into following the changes in the graduation of the Income Tax effected by the second Finance Act of 1931, the additional payment by the societies is slightly over £1,000,000 per annum.

Sir C. RAWSON: Has there been the same number of complaints as there were from the co-operative societies?

Mr. PRICE: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of arrears of Income Tax at 31st March, 1932, and the amount of arrears of Income Tax at 31st March, 1933?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The only estimate available of the Income Tax in arrear at the beginning of a financial year is that of the amount of tax then outstanding which it is expected will be collected during the financial year, and on 1st April, 1933, the amount is estimated to have been £24,000,000. The corresponding figure at 1st April, 1932, is now estimated to have been £22,000,000.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 57 and 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) the amount of Income Tax received for the year 1932–33 from married persons whose income did not exceed £200; how many persons were assessed; and how many had to pay;
(2) how many single persons whose income did not exceed £150 were assessed for Income Tax in the year 1932–33; and what was the total amount received from them?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): With the hon. Member's permission I will take these questions together. I regret that I am unable to furnish the particulars which the hon. Member asks for in relation to the Income Tax collection for the year 1932–33.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member supply the estimates on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer based his Budget proposals for this year or last year?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I doubt whether I can, but I shall be only too pleased to consider it if the hon. Member will put a question down.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that two questions are on the Order Paper, might I, without a further question, have from the hon. Member such estimates as were prepared for the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he reached his conclusion prior to introducing the Budget?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The question on the Order Paper asks me for the amount. The hon. Member is now ask-
ing me a question on a subject which is quite different. Anything that I can provide for him I will do so with pleasure.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. DENVILLE: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of theatres and cinemas, respectively, now paying Entertainments Duty in Great Britain?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no information regarding the number of theatres, but I understand that the total number of cinemas in operation in Great Britain on 30th April was 4,331.

WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. POTTER: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether steps have been or will be taken, preparatory to the meeting of the Economic Conference, to devise safeguards against repetition of the oversight at earlier international post-War conferences which has resulted in it being considered unnecessary to conform with the specifically included gold-payment-of-interest clauses; and is he aware that, unless means are provided which will prevent departure from contractual obligations, as part of international monetary, currency, and stabilisation decisions, the general public here is unlikely to risk savings for supporting international loans required for world re-settlement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall, of course, bear this matter in mind, but I do not see what action His Majesty's Government could usefully take in the direction my hon. Friend suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. LEONARD: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the additional cost incurred by the increase of staff in the Customs and Excise Department in the financial year 1932–33 as compared with 1930–31?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The additional cost incurred by the Customs and Excise Department owing to the increase of staff in 1932–33 as compared with 1930–31 was approximately £210,000.

IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. LEONARD: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total cost incurred in the work of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and its staff in the last financial year, together with the total of the salaries of such officials at the Treasury and the Board of Trade as are engaged on duties connected with import duties and the issue of import licences?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total cost of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and its staff for the last financial year was approximately £42.000, consisting of £37,500 for salaries and wages and £4,500 for rent, stationery, postage and incidental expenses. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question there is no branch of the Treasury or the Board of Trade solely engaged on work arising out of import duties or the issue of import licences, and no apportionment can be made of the cost of the services rendered by those Departments in connection with that work.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps are being taken and, if so, of what nature to try to cultivate in our Colonies products in respect of which we are compelled solely to rely upon cultivation by other nations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The possibility of producing within the Empire articles for the supply of which we are largely dependent on foreign sources is the subject of a great deal of research and experiment which has already produced substantial results, for example in the case of cotton. Moreover, the policy of preference is a direct encouragement to Colonies to develop production of commodities where climatic and economic conditions are favourable. Coffee, tobacco and various kinds of fruit afford examples of this.

BEER GRAVITY, CARLISLE.

Mr. HICKS: 33.
asked the Home Secretary the gravity of the beer now being sold by the State Management at 5d. per pint?

Mr. HACKING: It is not the practice of brewers to make public the gravities of their beers, and I think that in this matter the State, Management should conform to trade practice. I may say, however, that the gravity of this 5d. beer is two degrees higher than the gravity of the beer which was sold at 6d. before the revision of the Beer Duties.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Member what we are going to get from that reply? I want to know what is the gravity. Is it 1,025, 1,027, or 1,030?

Mr. HACKING: My hon. Friend wants to know what he is going to get from this reply. He is going to get better and cheaper beer.

Mr. THORNE: I want to find out, and I intend to find out, what is the gravity of this 5d. beer. You ought to know whether it is 1,027, 1,030, or 1,040.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member says that he intends to find it out. He may intend to find it out, but I am very sorry to say that he will not find it out from me.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he is going to get his tax unless he knows from the brewers what is the gravity of the beer that they are going to brew?

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (BRITISH AIR POLICY).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the position of the Disarmament Conference with respeot to the British proposal to retain aerial bombardment for police purposes in certain outlying regions, and whether the Government propose to reconsider this question in view of the objections raised?

Mr. BALDWN: The policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter was arrived at after full consideration. It was communicated to the House last November in Command Paper 4189, and has recently been restated by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Geneva.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am much obliged for the information which the right hon. Gentleman has already given, and which
is known to us all; but will he answer the last part of my question, whether in view of what has happened at Geneva there is any intention to reconsider the matter, particularly in view of the fact that the abolition of aerial warfare may not take place because of the attitude taken up by the British Government?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that that assumption is necessarily true, but the House cannot expect the Government to change a policy deliberately arrived at because objection has been taken to it. The obvious course for the Government is to explain their reasons and meet objections, and that is what we are trying to do at Geneva.

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, but the House and the country are suffering from the tact that we only gather from the newspapers what the Government's spokesmen are saying on these matters. What we want clearly answered is the question whether the attitude taken up by His Majesty's Government is an attitude which allows of no further reconsideration of this matter, even if it means wrecking the Conference on this particular point?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not going to consider so hypothetical a question as the wrecking of the Conference. I have stated the position as it exists very clearly, and I have nothing to add to it.

BILLS REPORTED.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

AMERSHAM, BEACONSFIELD, AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords.]

MABLETHORPE AND SUTTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Wililam Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Slaughter of Animals Bill): Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Samuel Rosbotham.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Dewsbury and Ossett Passenger Transport Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Oxford Corporation Bill [Lords,]

Lyme Regis District Water Bill [Lords,] without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for contributions by rubber manufacturers in the United Kingdom to the Research Association of British Manufacturers, for the collection and application of such contributions, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."[Rubber Industry Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the protection and improvement of certain streams in the county of Essex; to confer further powers on the Essex County Council and local authorities in relation to the health and local government and the preservation of the amenities of the county; to enact provisions with respect to massage establishments, employment agencies, hairdressers' and barbers' premises, places of public entertainment, sale of coke, town planning, and roads; to make provision for the finance of the county; and for other purposes."[Essex County Council Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the abandonment of the railways constructed under the powers of the Dearne District Light Railways Orders, 1915 to 1924, and the running by the Yorkshire Traction Company, Limited, of services of stage carriages in substitution there for; and for other purposes."[Dearne District Traction Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Cancer Hospital (Free) to make and accept charges for the accommodation and treatment of certain patients; and for other purposes." [Cancer Hospital (Free) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Torquay Tramways Company, Limited, to abandon their existing tramways; and for other purposes."[Torquay and Paignton Tramways (Abandonment) Bill [Lords.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [Lords.]

That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Local Government Bill [Lords] do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room on Thursday the 15th of June, next, at half-past Eleven o'clock.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

DEARNE DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [Lords.]

CANCER HOSPITAL (FREE) BILL [Lords.]

TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRAMWAYS (ABANDONMENT) BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [Lords.]

So much of the Lords Message as relates to the Local Government Bill [Lords] considered.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Sir Frederick Thomson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

3.33 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I do not propose to make a speech on the general topics of the Bill because they have been fully discussed during previous stages, and we are more anxious to hear the observations which the Opposition may desire to make. But I take this opportunity of correcting an error that I made last night. I was in error yesterday in my reference to the relations of the consumers' committee and the development board, and, in view of the observations made by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) we shall consider whether it is possible to make the development board subject to the consumers' committee; and if it is found desirable and possible an Amendment will be made in another place. The House has now before it the whole legislative structure upon which agricultural marketing in this country will be carried on in future, and, although, there may be dissatisfaction here and there with the proposal, I think the House as a whole will be satisfied with the main structure.

3.35 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House cannot assent to the Third Reading of a Bill which fails to encourage the development of organised marketing under the Marketing Act of 1931, confers wide powers for regulating the importation of foodstuffs without establishing machinery for economic bulk purchase and without adequate protection for the consumer, ignores the plight of the agricultural worker, and does not recognise the necessity for reorganising agriculture on the basis of a co-ordinated national plan.
I should like, in the first place, to congratulate the Ministers in charge of the Bill on the very smart way in which they have negotiated the Measure through Committee and Report stages, and to inform them that we fully appreciate the
compliment paid to the Opposition in Committee. We were four out of a total of 44, and were confronted by no less than four Ministers. This Bill was intended to be a marketing Bill, but that has become a secondary consideration. It is now an Import Restrictions Bill; marketing has gone into the background. The initiative which ought to come from the farmers themselves has now to come from the President of the Board of Trade. Instead of encouraging marketing schemes under the Act of 1931, Part I of this Bill, which deals with the regulation of imports of agricultural products, is going to develop procrastination and indifference on the part of farmers who otherwise would have been inspired into activity by the provisions of the marketing scheme. That is a ghastly mistake, and it is a mistake which has been made by the Government and by the representatives of the farmers with their eyes wide open. It is a mistake which will reColl on their own heads in the days to come. We have some sympathy with the small farmer in a remote rural area. His conception of marketing is a very dull one. He knows little or nothing at all about the conceptions of marketing of the Minister of Agriculture or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, or, in fact, of the House of Commons. If these small farmers are left to themselves, we shall not have marketing schemes in the next 100 years.
Conservative politicians from time immemorial have cultivated the idea in the mind of the farmer that if he is only persistent enough Tory Governments will find him an Eldorado by means of tariffs or subsidies or financial gifts of some kind, and that there is no need to organise his business in modern lines. Since the present Government came into power every farmer in the country, large and small, has been made to believe that initiative on his part is unnecessary; and that if the Government fail by One policy will adopt another, which they hope will be more successful. We have had various Measures in the last few years, commencing with the Measures introduced by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Home Secretary. I want to commend him for his part in the Government's policy. We started with the Horticultural and Agricultural Import Duties Act. Then we got the Wheat Act; the Ottawa Conference, with all the agri-
cultural agreements; the restriction of imports, beef, mutton, lamb, and later we have had the various trade agreements. Now we have this Bill. What the average small farmer right back in the rural areas thinks about all this sort of legislation I cannot imagine. I recall the statement made by the Lord President of the Council, when he said:
The agricultural industry wanted fixity. They did not want interference and they did not want legislative chopping and changing; they wanted to know where they were and to get on with their business.
If this Government have not been "chopping and changing" I should like to know what that expression means. Actually even to the farmer who understands organisation and who not only understands the production marketing and distribution of agricultural products but has some knowledge of the money market, I should think that this series of measures—rate relief, sugar beet relief, the Wheat Act, the Abnormal Imports Act, the Ottawa Agreements Act, voluntary restricions, the Trade Agreements and now this Marketing Bill—must have a confusing effect. It is calculated to make the farmers dizzy. What we feel satisfied about, however, is that under this Measure marketing will not develop as rapidly as every hon. Member, I am sure, would like to see.
We think it wrong that schemes should only have to be in course of preparation in order that regulations should be made as to imports. A scheme may be said to be "in course of preparation" but there may be two years delay before it ultimately comes into operation. And yet in the very first month of its consideration if the President of the Board of Trade is satisfied as to the honesty of the promoters of the scheme, an Order can be made, the import of the product concerned can be restricted and prices forced up and the moment that Order is in force, the farmer can sit back and rest on his laurels, satisfied that marketing does not matter if he has regulation of imports. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister, who, no doubt, will deal some sledge-hammer blows when he comes to reply, may tell me that there is a Market Supply Committee who will be watching not only the actions, but the inactivity of the farmers. He may claim it that under Clause 22 they can not only
make a scheme but revoke a scheme and that all this talk about procrastination on the part of the farmers is out of place. But that will not alter the fact that neither in Committee nor during the Report stage of this Bill have we been informed as to when a scheme is to be regarded as "in course of preparation." Will the fact that it is only the first month of the preparation of the scheme satisfy the President of the Board of Trade; or is it to be the 23rd month or 24th month? The Government have seen fit to whittle down the conditions precedent to the granting of an Order. These Orders will be so easily obtained and the necessary conditions will be so easily satisfied that one cannot see how this system is going to achieve the object of the right hon. Gentleman who, we think genuinely believes that marketing whether it grows from the bottom or is superimposed from above, has to come before there can be any lasting prosperity for agriculture.
I want to give one or two illustrations of the falsity of the sort of propaganda that has been employed in connection with this question. Numerous questions have been put recently by agricultural Members about the importation of potatoes. The foreigner is charged with having reduced the price of potatoes here by sending large quantities to this country and robbing the English producer of his market. What are the facts? Last year when imports from foreign countries were very large potatoes averaged £10 per ton. This year when foreign imports are negligible potatoes are only fetching £3 per ton. But that has not prevented the farmers from holding to the belief that the foreigner is the criminal. Though imports from abroad are practically non-existent this year, they are still held responsible for the uneconomic price. So long as the farmer believes that it is the foreigner who is to blame, even though the foreigner is sending in no potatoes at all, nothing that we may say or do will inspire or provoke the farmers into activity in the promotion of marketing schemes.
There is another illustration of which hon. Members ought to take note. We were informed yesterday about negotiations with foreign countries in regard to the imports of processed milk products, including cream, condensed whole milk,
condensed skimmed milk, milk powder and lactol. These imports, we understand, equal a total of 36,000,000 gallons of fresh, milk. The total quantity of liquid milk sold off the farms is 1,165,000,000 gallons a year. To what extent could 36,000,000 gallons of imports upset the marketing of the 1,165,000,000 gallons if that marketing were carried out on scientific lines with a definite relationship to the production of butter, cheese and other processed milk products? It may be true that with the methods in existence at the moment a surplus of milk constitutes a formidable price problem to the farmer but surely the farmer is to some extent responsible. Neither the consumers of fresh milk nor the users of milk for the production of butter, cheese and other articles, ought to be made to pay a higher price until the farmers themselves have a natioNaily organised dairy scheme, one part of which fits properly in with the others.
When the right hon. Gentleman has a restriction of 20 per cent. on the imported 36,000,000 gallons; when Scotland and Northern Ireland take their share of the available market; when the price of processed milk products starts to increase; when the Dominions realise that a bigger price is available in this country and that the right hon. Gentleman because of the Ottawa Agreements cannot keep out Dominion processed milk products—when that comes about, what advantage will there be to the farmer in this country? Not a single penny piece will find its way into the pockets of the milk producers unless and until they have a marketing scheme which is consistent with present-day requirements. The right hon. Gentleman has worked very hard and has done his level best in a short space of time; but after it all the consumer will pay higher prices temporarily and later on prices will revert to the original level, and the problem of the farmer will remain just where it was before he started.
There are two points which I would put to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). They were ardent supporters of the Ottawa Agreements and they are ardent supporters of the farmers engaged in dairy production. They constantly tell us by
implication that it is the importation of butter and cheese which has knocked the bottom out of the price of dairy produce in this country. The hon. Member and several of his Parliamentary colleagues signed a letter to the "Times" which was an appeal to the people of this country to buy more British-produced cheese. He thought that if we could restrict imports and encourage our own people to consume more British-produced cheese, it would be so much better for the milk producer. The hon. Gentleman knows that he supported the Ottawa Agreements, and that of 2,800,000 cwts. of cheese imported, 2,400,000 cwts. come from the Dominions. They cannot prohibit that, because of their action over the Ottawa Agreements, of which the hon. Baronet is a supporter. So with butter, however largely it is imported from the Dominions, there is no power to restrict it. They cannot have it both ways. They are either supporters of Dominion exchange of trade, or otherwise they must stand for the home farmer first, possibly the Dominions second, and foreign countries third. but they have pledged themselves, and the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) too, right up to the neck, and they cannot escape in May, 1933, from what they did in September, 1932. So much for the false propaganda that is constantly going on about keeping out foreign imports. The Dominions are a greater danger than the foreigners in dairy produce, unless and until we appreciate our oneness and the give-and-take of life finds expression.
There is one assurance in this Bill, and that is that the consumer will have to pay the price after every Order has been applied. I referred yesterday to the voluntary restriction. The price of beef has already increased by 12½ per cent., of bacon by 30 per cent., and of mutton by 50 per cent., and the consumer is having to pay. Of every £l spent by the housewife in this country, 12s. 6d. is spent on livestock products. Increase the price of beef, mutton, bacon, eggs, and dairy produce to a point where the lowest layers of society can no longer purchase them, and you will drive them back to margarine. That may be good for the coal industry, because I understand that they produce margarine from coal these days, and there might be something for
the mining industry, therefore, in these "Buy British" proposals of the Government; but—

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: They would prefer butter.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We are certain that they would prefer not only butter, but English beef, if they could buy it; but if, having driven wages down to the lowest possible point consistent with allowing the working man to live at all, he can buy neither butter nor beef, he will have to accept an alternative, even though it be a base imitation. You will then lose a large number of your original customers for agricultural produce, until your second state will be infinitely worse than your first. The "Daily Express" the other day said:
Commodity prices are rising. As existing stocks of goods are used up, this upward movement will be accelerated. Retail prices will follow wholesale prices. The shops will charge more for goods which to-day are abnormally cheap. The wise householder will buy now while the market is in his favour." He will bring in his sheaves while the sun is still shining.
That is perfectly true, and unless that does happen, the Government will fail lamentably with their Bill. We have been told that we have not seemed to appreciate that we are living in a new world of glut. The world is overstocked with all sorts of goods, and yet prices are perilously low. What the Government have not told us, if we cannot afford to buy this glut of goods at a cheap price, is who will be able to buy them when prices have increased? It seems to me that there is a screw loose in this high price philosophy, and I hope the Minister will tell us just where it happens to be loose. I read recently a volume written by Professor J. H. Richardson, of Leeds, for the League of Nations, and he says that from 1921 to 1931 the average real increase in wages is 3 per cent. He also tells us that the physical output per day between 1925 and 1929 has increased by 10.7 per cent. How, if production per person continually increases and wages remain more or less static, will it be possible for those static wages to buy this increased productivity? Since 1929 wages have fallen about £500,000 a week. There has been a con-
tinuous decrease in wages from 1921 of £11,310,000 per week.

Mr. MABANE: Not real wages.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Actual money wages. There has been a definite reduction in money wages Since 1921 of £11,310,000 per week. It is true that during the same period there has been a more or less perpendicular fall in prices. The net effect is to leave the worker with his real wages 3 per cent. higher than they were in 1914, but during that same period of time the physical output per person has increased enormously, so much so that the difference between the increase in real wages and the increase in physical output must of necessity leave a huge surplus on the market. If the effect of the Government's policy is to increase prices all round, we want to know who, when the prices are increased, will be able to buy these commodities. We have not yet been able to follow that piece of economic philosophy, and we leave the experts on the Treasury Bench to tell us all about it.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made preparations in certain circumstances for the home-grown produce to be marketed and to be used by development boards for production. With that part of the Bill we are willing to agree, and we welcome the inspiration that brought it about, but for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to restrict imports without controlling the sales of imported products, which are actually larger than the quantity produced at home, is to make a gratuitous present to the importer or to the foreign country of many millions of pounds. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans) yesterday gave an admirable example of what we were doing to the foreigner. He gave an example with regard to bacon for one month, and that will be multiplied 10 times over for all sorts of products when this Bill becomes law. We think, without attempting to elaborate any scheme, that an import board is a vital part of any marketing scheme in this country, for unless the imports are marketed in connection with home-produce, neither one of the two schemes will ultimately be an unqualified success.
With regard to the lack of any national planning in this Bill, the Market Supply Committee, consisting of five persons, will
have a very tall job. We think their job should have been made much more important, and we should have preferred that the numbers of the Market Supply Committee had been increased. Their power and influence should have been increased accordingly, and all these marketing schemes should have been of a national character, one working harmoniously with the rest, so that the geography, the fertility, and other considerations would have been taken into consideration by the planning committee, and a natioNaily reorganised agriculture might have been a possibility within a comparatively short space of time. We think that the lack of any national planning is a profound failure and a profound weakness in this Bill. Let me quote what an expert, Sir Daniel Hall, says:
The means of production in agriculture and all industries have become immensely and increasingly effective; we could all be well provided with even the luxuries, provided only the machinery of exchange could be got to work. One may, however, conclude that it is wrong to look to restriction of production as the way out; such action in the end can only lead to a lower standard of living all round … Before any effective policy can be formulated there must be a review of the situation as a whole, and the implications must be brought home to the average man. Somehow the answer must be acceptable to people at large. The statesmen must feel that they can trust to the reason of those who have put them in power. For the problem cannot be solved emotioNaily or by appeals to national or party sentiment.
He goes on to say:
Such a scheme would involve not only planning within each business, but State planning as to the scale and nature of the business that would be allowed a monopoly.
This Bill makes no provision whatever for that. Everything is more or less as it was before, and we regret very much that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not gone one step further with regard to national reorganisation and national planning.
The only other point I would raise is that this Bill, like many of its predecessors, takes very great care to look after the producer. It makes adequate provision for that disinterested person, the landlord, who, after all, according to the prosperity that is restored to agriculture, will take his share. For the last person, however, the important person, namely, the agricultural worker, no sort of safeguard has been provided. His plight is
absolutely and entirely ignored. It is not sufficient for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us that our Act of 1924 is enough. It is not enough, unless there is to be some guiding influence to insist that any benefits that may accrue to agriculture, at the expense of the 46,000,000 consumers, at least in part shall find its way into the pockets and the lives of the agricultural workers of this country. We regret that no provision has been made for them. Whatever good there may be in this Bill, and however we welcome its inspiration, yet because we feel that it is likely to encourage procrastination instead of Encouraging marketing schemes, that it confers large powers on the Minister to organise scarcity without giving any adequate safeguard for consumers, provides no machinery for hulk purchase which would not only help the consumer but the home farmer, ignores the plight of the worker, and fails to envisage any sort of national, planned agriculture, we are obliged to move this Amendment, and to oppose the Bill in the Lobby.

4.4 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: It is natural, when one comes to the Third Reading of the Bill, to consider to what extent, if at all, the points which one has tried to make on Second Reading have been met during its later passage through Committee, and, as we all know, this Bill comes out of Committee substantially in the form in which it went in. I cannot help feeling that that is a tribute to the very great skill of those who drafted it, and, I think, also a tribute to the Ministers, who took up rather a large proportion of those 13 days in Committee in instructing us—I dare say we needed it— in the working of the new plan of Socialism which the Bill embodies. They did it extraordinarily well, and with exemplary patience and tact. Admirable briefs were prepared for them, but the briefs did not conduce to brevity in their utterances to us. But they kept the Bill as it was. Therefore, the points that we tried to make on Second Reading still remain, and I will just mention some of them.
In the first place, it is not justifiable to revolutionise the structure of agriculture, as this Bill will fiNaily do, and to leave what I may call its social structure unaltered. I do not think it will be
found right in the long run to do what we are doing here, and to leave a system under which, as the hon. Member who has just sat down said, quite automatically the extra profits beyond a certain standard of life to the farmer and worker, pass automatically to the landlord on a change of tenancy, whether that landlord is a good one—as I think I am—and deserves all he gets, or is not so good a one, without any regard to the way in which the landlord tries to do his duty to industry. Secondly, we think that, taking a long view and in the long run, the policy of quantitative regulation of supplies at home and abroad, on which this Bill depends, though it seems to the vast Majority of this House the only way to meet a temporary emergency, is bound to come to grief, at home because of its complexity, and abroad because it is bound to handicap the general return to world prosperity which is the only real way, we believe, of securing prosperity for the industry of agriculture.
Arising out of that general position, we feel, as was stated in the Second Reading Debate, that this House is really not justified in interfering in the way that this Bill will interfere unless four conditions are satisfied: first, that we are not justified in interfering if that interference aims at maintaining domestic prices above world prices; secondly, if interference is meant to be permanent and not temporary and provisional; thirdly, if there are not adequate safeguards for the consumer; and fourthly, if what you do is not subject at all main stages to specific control by Parliament. Those are some of the points, at any rate, we tried to make, and they remain.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present —

Sir F. ACLAND: I want to deal with the question of control by Parliament over plans upon which we are now embarking. The difficulty, of course, in dealing with this Bill—we found it all through the Committee stage—is that it is simply a machine, a very great machine, but by itself it does nothing. One has had to try to look constantly through this Bill to see what will come after the schemes and orders, the boards and committees and controls, and behind that the reshaping of the whole market-
ing and price-fixing structure of agriculture. One is bound to feel that, once we have parted from this Bill, we shall have schemes presented to us by Orders in due course, but with regard to those orders, first of all, there will be no possibility of amending them. If, as a result of discussion here, the Minister thinks he should amend an Order he will have to withdraw it and lay another one, and, secondly, even the schemes will be in formal language, and will not show us what is really going to happen to the man who owns the plough or the man behind the plough—the really important thing—and still less will they show us how the shoe will pinch when these regulations are put into force. Once passed, we entirely lose control except by a method which is, after all, not a very desirable method, that of bothering the Minister of Agriculture as to particular grievances of our particular constituents.
The position of the industry will be just like the position of the man who said he did not know what it was to be happy until he was married, and it was too late then. I have, for instance, been trying to understand the milk scheme, but in vain. I think there are probably three people, including the Minister of Agriculture, and it may be a few farmers, who understand it, but if I were one of those who really understood it, and were trying to instruct others, I might feel rather like the German professor who said that he had only one student who really understood him, and he misunderstood him. I would like to read to the House a sentence which shows what is going to be the position of the person who is called a producer-retailer, say the ordinary man who in the country supplies me with my milk, for instance my tenant, who now sends the milk I want, and I pay his bill, I hope, when he sends it in. That is a transaction which is complete, and he sends me my receipt:
In future, as I learn from a document which describes in simple language the way the milk marketing scheme will work, the producer-retailer, that is, my farmer friend, will as distributor get the normal distributive margin of his region, and, as a producer, approximately the equivalent of the regional pool price, paying the levy for inter-regional compensation and for quality premiums, these levies being deducted from the regional prices at which the Central Producers' Board sells milk to the distributor, and the producer-retailer paying
nine-tenths of the difference between what remains and the regional pool price.
That is the sort of thing to which one will have to get accustomed when the schemes under this Bill get to work. We are trying a great experiment and setting up a gigantic machine which, I fear, we shall not be able to control. The Bill contains the structure of the machine, but on one can yet say what it will produce, and still less shall we be able to have any specific control of it when it gets to work.
The next point I want to make is with regard to the interests of the consumer. We were engaged on that subject for several days in Committee and for a good party of yesterday, and the only point I want to make turns on the words in Clause 1 which we had under review yesterday, that the regulation of imports can be made if a marketing scheme is in course of preparation. These words will be found to contain a danger. I would like to illustrate it. Last April the Lane Fox Committee was appointed to prepare a scheme for hams and bacon. It got to work and it worked hard, and by June it would have been perfectly legitimate for any President of the Board of Trade to convInce himself that a scheme was in course of preparation. If you look at the terms of referencee of the Lane Fox Committee, you will see what they had to do, and they began to do it. Their report was published, and I do not think that time has been wasted Since then.
I do not think that there has been any holding up of the scheme because of this Bill not being on the Statute Book. Things have been taking their ordinary course. The farmers concerned have been considering that scheme and putting up their own scheme, and things have been going on from last May or June when the scheme was in course of preparation. Yet I suppose that everyone would be rather optimistic if they thought that anything would really get done under the scheme until next autumn or very likely until the winter. That shows that between the time the scheme is in course of preparation and anything being done to reorganise the industry there may very easily be a period of 15 or 18 months. I am bound to say that I prefer the way in which the Home Secretary dealt with this matter in a
speech which I quoted on the Second Reading. When he was reproached with the fact that the Government were not doing enough for agriculture, he said:
When you organise your industry and make your effort and show that you can do it, then you can ask for restrictions, but meanwhile do not talk rubbish.
He evidently preferred the organisation to come first and restrictions to come later. I must make the point—an obvious one—that the industry is now on its best behaviour. Schemes are all the rage, but the Bill is not yet on the Statute Book. The getting into operation of a scheme is, after all, the important thing, for you may prepare the best scheme in the world and you will be up against a difficulty of starting it, and will not the preparation of schemes be slowed up a bit when this Bill is on the Statute Book and when those interested are absolutely assured that restriction of foreign supplies is to come first and reorganisation at home may come a good way second? The House knows the story of the showman who put up a pole and had a climbing donkey. He said to those who came to see the donkey climb the pole: "One more sixpence and up goes the donkey." The sixpences come in, but the story is still, "One more sixpence and up goes the donkey," and the donkey never goes up. It may be that once we have got this Bill the farming industry will tend to settle down to a position of saying, "A little more restriction of supplies from abroad and a little more protection direct and indirect, and up goes the donkey; we will then begin to reorganise our industry." They will always be wanting more and not doing very much in return. There may not now be much feeling and friction because—until lately, at any rate —there has been a steady fall in world prices, but as soon as these restrictions begin to have an effect on the cost of living, there will be difficulties and grievances, and I think there may be difficulty in making these schemes permanent. If they are not permanent they will be entirely useless.
I now come to the central point which I want to make. Why is it that we in this party with what hon. Members will no doubt call our out-of-date principles, but which really are very fundamental instincts which we cannot change, and so doubtful and anxious about the result
of the Bill? It is simply because we are not in fact Socialists and that the rest of the Members of the House of Commons nowadays are. We dislike regimentation, and we dislike it equally whether it is regimentation from the right or from the left, whether it is after the pattern of Mussolini or Hitler or after the pattern of Lenin. [Really one hardly likes to think about the difficulties of the farmer under this new dispensation. They are plenty now. He has to master the art and science of agriculture and the business of agriculture, but when one looks ahead, one sees one after another of his activities coming under the control of the schemes which this Bill is meant to facilitate. Let the House mark that, once you begin, you have to go on; you cannot have one piece of the farmer's work regulated and another left free. They all dovetail into one another and one thing will lead on to another until everything is regulated.
I can imagine him considering perhaps the question whether he will keep a bee. He will then have to ask this sort of question: "What is my bee quota? Is my area going to be fairly treated in the allocation of stocks of bees? What sort of bees shall I have to keep? Can I get a little more restriction on honey from New Zealand or other countries before I start on bees? When I have got my stock of bees, am I sure that my industry will not be upset by some trade agreement with some country that wants to send us its honey and which in return will take more of our coal? Can I get my Member of Parliament to see to it for me that if I go in for bees the profits will be assured without any chance of variation?" All that sort of thing is new; it is far-reaching; it tends to shift the centre of gravity of the industry from a man's byres and barns, his orchards and pastures to boards, committees and regulations, to the operations of Members of Parliament on his behalf, and to negotiations with foreign countries—all centering on Westminster. I have an old-fashioned preference for a man centering his business where his business is, and not up here under the control of this new organisation.
That is where we stand. We do not like all these new ideas, and that is all about it. It is said that the Treasury clerks must be a very pious set of men,
because, when two or three meet together, they are always talking about conversion and redemption. It is said, perhaps with more truth, that when the Scottish shepherds and herdsmen, whom the Minister knows so well, meet together, they spend their spare time in discussing the problems of predestination and free will. That is the issue between us in this House. This Bill means predestination, but we still uphold free will. This is not the time or the place to expand that philosophy; still less is this the time in which the issue can be settled. It will take many years to prove whether we are right or wrong. I am sure that the Minister believes that he is right, but, if anyone so well ordered as he seems to be in all his works and ways ever has a nightmare, I wonder whether he does not see polls, and boards, committees, commissions and councils breathing forth inquiries and reports and orders and schemes and regulations, rising up against him like angry beasts round his bed—a great machinery which he has created, but which may some day crush, I hope not him, but his successors.
I am not sure that the biggest conclusion that remains in my mind in considering the whole matter as well as I have been able to do is not that we are setting up machinery which, not by the passing of this Bill, but by the schemes which will follow, without which the Bill is nothing, will be too big for human brains to work. These schemes will be extraordinarily intricate, and the task of reconciling under them the interests not only of producers, distributors and retailers, but of different classes of producers, will create enormous difficulties.
I remember once trying to form a co-operative bacon society for Devon and Cornwall, and I said—it was untrue, but it was politic to say it—that you could make a reasonable bacon pig even out of the Gloucester Old Spot. A man who believed that Gloucester Old Spots were the finest animals that Providence ever sent into the world got up and left and withdrew his support from our scheme. I thought he was wrong, but after all, I have some sympathy with that sort of individual point of view. Under a bacon scheme, when it gets going, that type of
man will disappear. He will either have to give up his Gloucester Old Spots or the bacon industry, but as soon as you weed out, as you will under this regimentation, that sort- of independent view, even though it may sometimes be mistaken, you will lose something in the structure of agriculture and of the life of our countryside. If we find this evening that we have to take the same course on the last stage of this Bill as we did on the first, it will not be because we do not think that the Minister is making a very wonderful effort in what he himself described as a very great experiment, and making it with the most admirable energy and ability; it will be because of the fundamental principle which will not be decided in our day and generation that we are forced to differ from his point of view.

4.29 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I do not want to delay the Third Beading of the Bill, but wish to offer a few general remarks. I think that on Third Reading our remarks should be general and should not refer to details, because they have been threshed out in the Committee and Report stages and, even if they have not, this is not the time when it is possible to get any alteration made in the Bill. My first object in rising is to thank the Government, and particularly the three Ministers who have had charge of the Bill, for their action in bringing the Bill into the House and passing it through. I would like to thank them on behalf of agriculture, because I can assure the House and the Government that agriculture is looking for this Bill with great expectations, but I do not wish to confine my thanks on behalf of agriculture only, because I believe that the country as a whole will benefit to a great extent by an improvement in the conditions of agriculture. It is an old saying and still very true that any country that ignores its agriculture is bound ultimately to suffer. At no time has it been more necessary for the country to have a prosperous agriculture, because when industry is finding so much difficulty, even impossibility, in obtaining markets for manufactured articles, it is all the more essential that agriculturists should produce here all that we can, and so relieve industry of having to pay for foodstuffs imported from abroad.
I would like to add my meed of thanks to the Members of the Opposition—it is not usual to do so, perhaps, but I prefer to do it—who not only in the House, but in Committee have given consideration to this Bill. I am aware that, generally speaking, it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose, but their opposition has been more in the nature of assisting to improve the Bill than offering real opposition to its purpose. They did, however, express fears regarding the position in which the consumer might find himself after the passing of this Bill. I believe those fears, genuine though they doubtless are, to be quite unfounded. I can assure them there is no intention or desire on the part of producers here that consumers should suffer. Anyone with business instinct knows that the way to do good business is to keep good friends with one's customers, and consumers in this country are the customers of the producers of agricultural products, also the Bill itself, as has been referred to by the Minister, provides full protection for consumers.
One or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) call for comment. He referred to flotsam and jetsam when speaking of the Minister. All I know about Flotsam and Jetsam comes from what I have heard of them on the wireless, where they have proved to be a very fine combination. As to potatoes, he said that farmers were saying that the disastrous condition of the industry this year was caused by imports. As the farmer knows, however, it was not caused by imports on this occasion, but arose from a glut of home produce, as has been the case on other occasions. This Bill not only provides for the curtailment of imports, but also provides machinery for regulating the sale of home produce. I was asked whether I persoNaily approved of the Ottawa Agreements. Most certainly I did, but I do not think that at the time those agreements were entered into anybody could have had any idea that there would be such a slump in prices as we have Since seen. Undoubtedly the cause of the very great depression in the milk trade has been the competition of imported cheese from New Zealand, not only as regard the quantities sent in but the prices ruling on account of exchange manipulations. The hon. Member also expressed some degree of fear
regarding the position of the agricultural labourer. Agriculture cannot prosper without the agricultural labourer benefiting by that prosperity. He has the protection of the Agricultural Wages Board, and this Bill will also give him the opportunity of demanding and obtaining by the machinery already in existence a reasonable wage for himself and a fair share of the prosperity of the industry. Unless agriculture is put into a reasonable state of prosperity the labourer may not have the possibility of retaining hi3 job, let alone getting more wages.
I would also like to refer to one or two remarks by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). He said agriculturists might find that the shoe pinched under some of the schemes which will be put forward. He was at least assuming that the agriculturist would still have shoes. If nothing were done for agriculture he probably would have to go unshod, and then there would be no fear of the shot pinching. However, this is not the time to consider particular schemes. This Bill provides the machinery under which schemes are prepared, and the time for considering the schemes will be when they come before the House. I hope his concluding sentences did not mislead me into believing that he was going to vote against the Bill. I shall be very much surprised if he does so, because I have always understood that he was a great supporter of agricultural co-operation, and this Bill gives the greatest opportunity for cooperation which the agriculturists have ever had. Consequently, I cannot see how he can approve of co-operation and conscientiously vote against this Bill, which provides the greatest possible opportunities for bringing about co-operation—co-operation with the added satisfaction of the guarantee of a market. One of his remarks had to do with a tale about a donkey, but I could not see anything besides the tail. He also spoke about Gloucester Old Spot pigs. My experience is that when the farmer finds it will pay him to change his spots he will change them. It is the Liberal who never changes his spots.
In a few general observations I would point out that the character of industry throughout the country has changed, and changed very greatly, but the change has
been so gradual that we have not always noticed it. To-day industry is more on the collectivist principle than it ever has been, and I think it will have to be so. I am not an advocate of Socialism. Socialism, it is true, is collectivism, but it is collectivism under political control, and I require and hope to have a collectivism which will be under the control of those people who are interested in the industry controlled. Not only Capttal, but labour, has been gradually but very emphatically turning over to collectivism. In no industry will the change be so much felt as in agriculture, and it is necessary that there should be such a change. The farmer has always been a great individualist, and as a producer it will be necessary for him. to continue as an individualist. Eve)y field requires individual treatment, and even parts of a field require individual treatment. There are fields of which one part will not react to the same treatment as other parts. Those who know anything about stock also will know that every animal has its own personality, which has to be considered by the agriculturist. Again, nothing suffers more from the change of climate than agriculture. The farmer knows the variations of the climate. He must be an individualist if he is to be a successful producer, but in the disposal of his produce collectivism must come in.
Collectivism was made possible to a certain extent by the Act of 1931, and the feeling which prompted those on the opposite side when bringing forward that Measure, and the feelings which prompted those of us, then in opposition, who supported that Bill and endeavoured by criticism to improve its character, was a recognition of the fact that collectivism in the disposal of the produce of the land is absolutely essential. That Measure in itself was incomplete, however. It provided for the organisation of supplies, but, as we pointed out at the time, there was no provision for the marketing of the article after it had been produced. This Bill not only extends in various ways the powers taken under the previous Measure, but it does provide for marketing, and that is the great advantage of it, and why I am supporting it with so much pleasure. If anybody were to ask what is the greatest proof of the necessity for this Bill I should say it is the
action, which we applaud so much, of the present Minister in trying by voluntary arrangements to restrict the import of agricultural produce. The conditions which have compelled him to make those voluntary arrangements prove conclusively the necessity for this Bill. Without saying more I will conclude by expressing my appreciation of the action of the Government in bringing forward the Bill, and the hope that it will have a very successful life and prove to be of benefit not only to agriculture but to the community as a whole.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. PALMER: I am pleased to be one of the first speakers representing an industrial division to welcome this Bill. I welcome it for one very good reason, that by supporting this Bill I am carrying out one of my election pledges, a pledge given not in 1931 but in 1929, when, as one of 500 Labour candidates, I vowed to do my best to make farming pay. It is not always an easy task to carry out election pledges; in fact, hon. Members opposite will find it an impossible task when they attempt to carry out some of theirs. There must be pleasure in Heaven whenever such a task is accomplished; and what praise must we bestow on a Government which, not content with carrying their own election promises, also start to carry out the unredeemed promises of their predecessors? Surely that is the acme of political rectitude. This Bill is a complementary Measure to Acts passed by the Labour Government, the Agricultural Marketing Act and the minimum wage provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act. The latter enforced the payment of certain wages by the farner to his workers, and this Bill will make it possible for him to do it by providing him with the wherewithal to pay. It will also do away with the dilemma in which the independent members of county wages committees have found themselves. They have recognised that the standard of agricultural wages throughout the country was much too low, but they have known, also, that it was impossible for farmers to maintain even that low standard judging by the prices received for their produce. One does not need to be an economist or an agricultural expert to realise that farmers cannot pay the present standard of wages out of the prices which they have been receiving. Within the past month housewives in
many large towns have been able to buy English new-laid eggs at Is. a dozen.

Mr. GROVES: Why not?

Mr. PALMER: An hon. Member opposite asks, "Why not?" Suppose I trace that penny egg back from the retailer? The retailer has to make a profit and so have the man who marketed the egg and the farmer on whose farm it was produced. Before the hen starts to lay, the farmer has to provide hen-house, food and equipment, and he has to pay rent, or interest on Capttal. He has also to face the terrible number of almost useless male progeny that his hens produce, progeny that he has had to keep for many months until he found that their laying properties were not coming up to expectation. All those things have to be faced by the farmer who is producing the penny egg. The penny egg cannot bear that burden, and the consumer must pay more than a penny if he wants an English egg.

Mr. GROVES: If the penny egg is raised to l½d., has the housewife not to pay the difference?

Mr. PALMER: If the penny egg goes up to three half-pence, the agricultural labourer will be in a better position to buy town products, and that will assist the employment position in our towns. Our country market is very poor because of the low standard of agricultural wages. Having followed the penny egg back, let us take another staple article of food, potatoes. In the provincial town in which I live, the housewife is buying very good potatoes at 20 lbs. for 1s., which means a retail price of about £5 5s. per ton. The retailer has to make a profit. Those potatoes have been transported over 100 miles from the farm to the towns, and that absorbs another £1 per ton. That does not leave much to the farmer, who has had to buy seed and has his rent to pay. He has to plough, manure and hoe the land, produce the potatoes, and place them in bags costing 5s. per ton. At 20 lbs. for 1s. the consumer is getting cheap food, but we must remember that because of that cheap food there must be cheap men and women on our farms and in our fields. We should refuse to bow down any longer to this god of cheapness. A fair price is essential from the town dweller and should be given to the producer in our countryside. We pay far too dearly for cheapness in this
country. We must realise that a fair price is necessary if we are to maintain our agricultural population. As a result of this cheapness, we see the depopulation of our countryside. Men and women have been flocking from our fields and farms to the already overcrowded cities and towns.
We welcome a policy that will not only stem that tide of humanity but will reverse it, so that before long we shall see the re-colonisation of our country; we shall see men and women leaving the overcrowded towns and cities and going back to the country. In the healthy life that they will live they will find themselves growing stronger and more virile, and they will watch their children around them growing healthy and bonny. We do not intend that agriculture shall be sacrificed to the idol of cheap food for the people in our towns. The generations of our towns have been kept going by a constant stream of flesh and blood from the country. That stream is now drying up, but without assistance from the men who live in our fields, a town-bred nation cannot survive. It has already got altogether out of bounds. We have to adjust the balance between town and country if we are to survive.
I am willing to admit the criticism made of the farming industry. I know that the marketing methods which are in use at present leave much to be de sired. There are far too many middle men. That is why I welcome this Bill. I hope that under it is will be possible to wipe out many of the redundant middlemen. A few weeks ago I had a meal at a small restaurant and part of that meal consisted of potatoes. I traced those potatoes back through six pairs of hands, between the producer and the person who ate them. Six people had made a profit. What chance was there of the producer making a living when all those redundant middlemen had to have their pound of flesh out of every transaction that took place? Our staple foods have to run a veritable obstacle race between the producer and the consumer. This Bill will make a highway between the man who produces and the man who needs the food, and the food will not pass through so many hands, each one helping to make it dearer. The Bill will enable the farmer to deal better with bad seasons.
People may say, "When nature is bountiful and the crops are good, surely the consumer should have the advantage of that." But the consumer should not have all the advantage. I have watched prices over a series of years, and I have noticed that a 5 per cent. glut will bring prices down 15 per cent., but a 15 per cent. glut will bring prices down 50 per cent. There should be some relation between excess of supply and the percentage of drop in prices. That can only be accomplished by having a series of marketing boards, but they would be useless without import control. You cannot expect farmers to spend their time reglating their methods of marketing, only to find, when they have arranged a scheme that is practicable and workable, that a sudden glut of importation from another country sends the bottom out of the market and the scheme over which they have spent many months of organising is broken down. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) was doubtful as to when the donkey was going to climb. I can tell him from my knowledge of the farming industry that the donkey is already climbing. We used to have a large importation of potatoes of a class that was never grown in this country, but which was especially useful to fish fryers. The farmer felt that the market was so insecure—the East Coast and London could be supplied so much cheaper from Holland—that he never troubled to plant that kind of potato. The result of the tariff has been that farmers in LinColnshire are planting many acres of that special variety, and a brand new industry that the farmers could not nave tackled unless they had the security of the tariff, is springing up.
The tariff is not enough without the security of marketing schemes. We have noticed in the last 12 months, as was stated by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), that, although we have had from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. import duty upon potatoes, the lack of a marketing scheme has meant that the farmers have not been able to deal with the small glut in potatoes, and that prices have accordingly slumped back. The Bill will give the producers a chance to spend all their time producing. The farmer is an amateur at marketing, and he is up against the professional who is constantly buying and selling, and who understands
much better the ups and downs of the market. The Bill will give the farmer a chance to concentrate upon producing; the selling can depend upon the expert guidance of the men upon the marketing boards. Co-ordinated action is the only way of dealing with this. Individual action is absolutely useless.
Suppose that a farmer is producing peas. He sees in the paper that, while he is getting 3s. in Birmingham for his peas, others are getting probably 3s. 6d. in Leicester, so he decides to send his peas to Leicester instead of to Birmingham. He forgets that dozens of other farmers have already read that article, or heard it over the wireless, and that they do the same. The result is that Birmingham becomes temporarily short of peas; the market which was 3s. 6d. will probably slump to 3s., and the market that was 3s. will probably soar to 4s. The sub-title of this Bill ought to be the Agricultural Marketing and Anti-Gambling Bill, because farming, as conducted at present, is a gamble. The farmer puts in his crops, not knowing whether he will find a market for them, and, if he finds a market, he has no idea what price he will receive. The Clause of the Bill which deals with pig products links the price received with the cost of production, which is absolutely essential, if the industry is to be soundly conducted.
We, who are interested in agriculture, and wish to see the growth of our rural population in order to relieve the pressure upon the towns, believe that the Labour representatives should realise the danger of unorganised labour from the country dumped upon the towns. I remember that when one of our garden cities was started a large factory went down from London, where they had to pay a high rate of wages, and settled in an agricultural area. Then men went from the fields to work in the factory, and one of the men had an interview with the foreman, who said, "What are you getting on the farm?" The man replied, "18s. per week and my milk." "Come in here," said the foreman, and we will give you 25s. per week and wean you. "The standard rate of wages in the town was well over 50s. for that work. We want to keep these men on our countryside, so that they do not flock to the town and bring down the standard of wages in the large towns. The Bill will bring order
out of chaos, and will replace haphazard methods with a sound and far-seeing plan. It is the most important Measure that the Government have yet introduced. The Government have set out to build upon what I believe are sure foundations. They not only intend to build in England's green and pleasant land, but they intend to build up England's green and pleasant land.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. DREWE: I am anxious to see this Bill become law at the earliest possible moment, and I wish to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture for the very successful and very courteous way in which he has brought it to its final stage. I know that he is well aware of the extreme gravity of the position in agriculture, and how essential it is to take immediate action. The Opposition do not appear to understand that the position is as grave as it is. They seem to be content to see our markets continually glutted with foreign produce until such time as marketing schemes are actually in operation. I am afraid that if that took place, and if such a policy were carried out, there would be no agricultural industry to save. I do not claim to be an expert in this matter, but I have been associated with the land all my life. Any hon. Member who is closely in touch with the agricultural position must agree that the situation in farming to-day is nothing short of desperate. The credit of farmers is so low that, unless immediate action is taken, the situation cannot be saved.
Farmers recognise that the Government are devoting very much more time and thought to agriculture than any previous Government. They are entitled to say that, with the exception of the Wheat Quota Act, none of the schemes which the Government have so far put forward have actually brought fresh money into their pockets. Meat restrictions have certainly arrested the fall in prices that took place last autumn, but the present prices of meat and of store cattle, dairy cattle and sheep, are still far below a remunerative level. We can truthfully say that the prices of pigs have responded better than anything else to the quota system. A short time ago, pigs were getting to a level that once more showed a profit. Unfortunately,
there has been a fall, during the last few weeks, and the prices of pigs have been fluctuating very considerably.
As the Minister knows, there is to-day a crisis in the milk industry, and the same is true of the poultry and egg industry. I am certain that the only thing that will now restore confidence amongst farmers is some immediate action. As the Government will have the necessary powers, I beg them to act boldly and not to employ any half measures. I remember my right hon. Friend stating, when he was dealing with voluntary restrictions, that up till now he had had only a dummy revolver, and that when this Bill became law he would be armed with a real weapon. I hope he will be found to be a really good shot, and that when he first goes out he will make very good practice. Farmers cannot understand why, when milk prices have been forced right down to the bottom, when manufacturers of milk products say that they must restrict their output, we should continue to import condensed and skimmed milk. We are very grateful for the statement that the Minister made yesterday, that he was arranging for voluntary restrictions during the next three months; but I do hope that when he has got these powers he will go further than that, and that the farmer will be able to enjoy a far greater measure of security over a longer period.
As to eggs, the poultry farmer to-day cannot understand why, when there is a glut of British produced eggs and prices are far below a paying level, we should continue to import ever-increasing quantities of liquid eggs for manufacturing purposes. I hope that the Minister will give particular consideration to the question of eggs in the near future. No one can deny that the farmers have been sorely pressed. They have been waiting very patiently for this Bill to become law. It is the only ray of hope that they have had. Now that the Bill is on the point of reaching the Statute Book I beg the Government to use their powers up to whatever limit may be necessary in order to restore prices in agriculture to a point which will show a profit.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Having reached the final stage of this Bill I want Sincerely to congratulate the Minister of
Agriculture upon the very able and courteous way in which he conducted the Bill through Committee upstairs. The chief thing upon which I want to congratulate him is his having got the farmers to accept this bureaucratic control of their industry. The farmer, the secondary producer, is called upon by the Bill to sell the right of conducting business in his own way for the doubtful gift of a system of quotas. The supporters of the Bill claim for it two things—that it stabilises production and stabilises prices. But it goes much further than that. Under the Bill production can be stopped, it can be regulated, a man's property can be bought and sold by a development board, compensation can be granted to the inefficient producer at the expense of the efficient farmer, and no longer is a person free to sell his own goods where and when he likes. The choice of producing what he likes is now at an end, or it will be; he must produce what he is told to produce, in kind, variety or description.
Further, if he is efficient in his methods, that is not thought to be worthy of commendation, but should he produce what someone else may term excessive production he is liable to be fined or imprisoned, or both. Having produced what some committee thinks fit, he then has the doubtful privilege of making a full disclosure of his accounts. Gone for ever is the freedom of the citizen to produce when and where he likes, and the mess of pottage for which he exchanges his birthright is the dictation of a committee, who will instruct him how to conduct his own business. The Bill provides marketing boards, a Market Supply Committee, development boards, an agricultural reorganisation committee and an investigation committee. It struck me that if a man happens to be a member of several of these committees, and should he be fortunate enough to have a little time left, he will be permitted to produce what the several committees allow him to produce, provided always that he understands all the rules laid down. The party opposite, if and when it returns to power, will simply complete this bureaucratic structure by adding to it import boards. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade yesterday used these words:
One of the great difficulties in this House is to convInce hon. Members of the entirely new set of circumstances which
confront the world, namely, the economy of glut."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1933; col. 1580, Vol. 278.]
Another thing that he said on 13th of March was:
Supporters of the Measure …recognise the enormous contribution to Statute law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1933; col. 1746, Vol. 275.].
We on these benches think it is necessary to recognise the economy of distribution. We say at once that we will accept your new economy when you have proved to us that the 45,000,000 or 46,000,000 consumers of this country have sufficient of these very things in which you tell us there is a glut. This country and the world generally are not suffering because of the abundance of things, but are suffering because of the failure to find a method of distributing them. What you need are not fewer supplies, but more consumers. You are not making any provision in this Bill for the settlement of that problem. Rather are you aggravating it by making permanent, in your economic system, a policy of restrictive quotas. The consumer, upon whose power of consumption ultimately depends the success or failure of your scheme, is to be called upon to pay much more for his requirements. Is that going to increase your sales?
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans) yesterday made a very striking speech, in which he said that in one week alone, Since the voluntary agreement with the countries which send bacon to us, the consumers of bacon in this country had had to pay £90,000 more for what they consumed, and they consumed 22,000 cwt. less of bacon. It is the experience of all countries which have quotas that they actually pay more than those countries which are free from quotas. I remember that when I spoke on the wheat quota I quoted the figures of Germany and France and other countries to show the greater cost of wheat where this kind of quota was in existence. The Minister of Agriculture and those who support the Bill tell us that their desire is to put up prices, but by this quota system, in order to give a higher price to home producers who perhaps produce 10 or 20 per cent. of a, given commodity, they hand over to the foreigner increased prices on 80 or 90 per cent. of the total consumption. I
suppose that this is necessary when one really recognizes "the economy of glut."
Under this Bill the consumer will be called upon to contribute millions a year to the foreign producer, in order that the pledges of two Ministers may be considered to have been fulfilled. But the test of the consumer will be not whether he is taxed directly, but whether by your legislative action you have made it harder for him to purchase his necessities. You will not deceive him by your backstairs methods. We on these benches believe that of all the restrictions which are preventing world recovery, quotas are the worst. You profess that you are entering a World Economic Conference with a desire to free the world from its self-imposed strangling chains, and on the very eve of the Conference you are making permanent a system of quotas. I cannot imagine the other countries crediting us with Sincerity when we make the claim that we wish to see the world enjoy a greater measure of freedom of trade. I suggest that these other countries are not going to sit down and be content merely with your putting on quotas. They are going to retaliate.
I happen to represent a Bradford constituency. One of the things that has prevented a greater measure of recovery in the Bradford trade is this very system of quotas. We can produce in that area cloth which can get over tariff barriers, because of quality. We can produce it at prices which, allied with quality, can compete in any market of the world; but we cannot get past a quota, which defines the quantity that shall go into a specific country. I suggest that by your action of making permanent a system of quotas in this country you may for the time being be giving temporary assistance to agriculture, but I am certain that it must have a very bad effect on other trades in the country. We desire to see trade flowing freely between one country and another, and we say that you could not have chosen a more inopportune moment for fastening on this country as a permanent system the very thing that is preventing world recovery. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) stated on the Second Reading of the Bill under what conditions we should have been prepared to accept a Bill to assist agriculture, which we all acknowledge is
necessary. It is because the four conditions that he demanded are not fulfilled in this Bill, that we are compelled to oppose it.

5.14 p.m.

Captain FRASER: There is a particular class of farmers for whom I want to say a word. They are the small men who engage more particularly in poultry farming and similar pursuits, and especially the ex-service men and many of my friends, a large number of blinded soldiers, who have been very successfully set up as small poultry farmers and are by this pursuit adding substantially to their pensions, and in many cases making a living. They are small individualists. They are both producers of foodstuffs and their own salesmen. It is precisely because they are their own salesmen that they can get a price which makes their small turnover bring in anything worth while. They cannot in any circumstances, by reason of their financial situation and their station in life, develop into large producers with a large turnover, and it seems to me that more or lees to compel them to market through centralised schemes would make it very much more difficult for them to get a living than it is now. They may own half an acre, or two or three acres, and thereon they produce enough poultry and eggs to supply the local country houses, the local schools, and, perhaps, the local hospital. They have a dozen or 20 regular customers to whom they deliver their goods themselves. I understand that in Committee some assurance was given that the small man who raised pigs, and perhaps milk, would not find the market which he had developed for himself taken away from him, and would not find himself compelled to come into a centralised scheme.
I know that I am asking for exceptional treatment for a particular group, while I am at the same time approving of, perhaps, compelling, or at any rate persuading, people in a larger way to come into the scheme, and that may be paradoxical. But, while these men, who at their age are unable to change their methods, are making a living out of their present little businesses, it would seem to me to be a tragedy if they were compelled to come into some scheme which made it unremunerative for them to carry
on their work, and I want to ask the Minister, who, I know, has a particular sympathy for this class of men, to give an assurance that, in carrying out the administration of this Bill when it becomes law, he will see to it that the really small men, whose livelihood depends on the fact that they are their own salesmen as well as producers, are given some: measure of security.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in the final discussion of this Bill before it leaves the House of Commons for another place. Our task to-day is merely that of fiNaily commending or fiNaily condemning the Measure in its amended form. We have listened, during this very interesting Debate, to various points of view which have been put forward, and I should like to say, in passing, how particularly glad we, who are supporters of the National Government in this great attempt, were to hear the vigorous speech of the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Palmer). He, at all events, showed that, so far as he and the Labour supporters of the National Government are concerned, they are in no way dismayed by the prospects held out in this Bill. We have heard the summing-up from those on both sides who are opposing the Measure. We have heard two speeches from the Liberal benches, and I should like to comment briefly upon one or two remarks that fell from the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland).
In an exceedingly interesting speech, he reiterated many of the arguments that he has used against the Bill on the Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report yesterday. With a wealth of illustration, he suggested to us—I do not remember his exact words—that it was like a man who, after getting married, said that of course he did not know what the experiment was like until after he had sampled it, and, when he had, he wished that he had not. I am not a married man, and I cannot speak with the technical knowledge pos-sessesed by the friend of the right hon. Baronet; but there was one other remark of the right hon. Genoleman upon which, perhaps, I can throw a little more light. He said that, when shepherds
on the Scottish hills where at a loose end, they sometimes, with that predilection which the Scottish mind always has for theological questions, sat down and debated the respective merits of predestination and free will. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that this Measure savoured very strongly of predestination. But, as far as Scotland is concerned, I would remind him that the standard of faith professed by the Church of Scotland, drawn up by an assembly of divines in Westminster, pronounced strongly in favour of predestination, and, seeing that the shepherds are strong supporters of that religious body, perhaps I might make bold to say that they would not be entirely in disagreement with the ideas of predestination contained in this Bill. The right hon.Gentleman wound up by saying words to the effect that this Bill was full of new things, and that, as such, he could not look upon it with very great favour; he hoped that it would be a success, but he gravely doubted it.
The hon. Member who followed him said that the right hon. Gentleman had left us in doubt as to which way he was going to vote. I am not so doubtful as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb). In fact, I wish I could be as sure of what is going to win the Derby to-morrow as I am sure as to the Lobby into which the right hon. Gentleman and his followers will go this afternoon. We have had one speech, so far, from the official Opposition, and, of course, that was strongly against the Measure. Their complaint was not that the Bill is too Socialistic, as has been represented on the other side of the House, but that the Socialism contained in it is not of the right kind, and perhaps, between the two, we who support the National Government in this and other endeavours have hit upon the right kind of legislation to meet the needs of the present day in agriculture, as well as in every other industry.
I welcome the Bill because it is a great attempt, as everyone has said, on the part of the Minister of Agriculture to assist the agricultural industry in its entirety. It supplies what the Agricultural Marketing Act introduced by Dr. Addison in 1931 did not supply, namely, what we believe to be the necessary ingredient of control of foreign imports.
That was the chief complaint raised by the agriculturists against Dr. Addison's Marketing Act. To-day Clause 1 of this Bill, which is the most controversial Clause in the whole Bill, deals with this vexed question. Of course, there has been considerable controversy, not merely among supporters of the Government, but among the farming community, as to whether the restriction of imports goes far enough. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in order to drive home this point, spoke of the Ottawa Agreements, thinking that he had laid his hand upon a very weak point indeed. It is a point that has been made frequently by Liberal speakers up and down the country. But that is only looking at one side of the question. The case of the Government has been stated very clearly in this House both by the present Minister and by his predecessor, and by every other-spokesman from the Front Government Bench. Their design is, of course, to give the home producer the first place in the home market; secondly, to draw upon Dominion supplies; and, after that, to open our shores to the imports of any foreign country that desires to trade with us.
The hon. Member for South Totten ham spoke about his election address and pledges, and his doing so gives me an opportunity that I am glad to take, because, perhaps, the House will pardon me if I allude to my own election address. In that manifesto to my constituents, I said that the task of the National Government with regard to agriculture, though it would be a very difficult one, would have to be dealt with on these very lines, namely, first the home producer, then the Dominion producer, and then foreign countries. We were all glad to hear yesterday—I mention this in passing, because it strengthens my position—the Minister of Agriculture tell the House at Question Time what agreements he had come to with exporting countries in regard to milk and butter. All those of us who are interested especially in the dairying-branch of agriculture were very glad indeed to hear that statement. We have in this Bill Clause 1, dealing with the restriction of imports, and that, taken in conjunction with the Ministerial declaration, shows that the Government are
in earnest. The Ottawa Agreements must not be looked upon by the farming community as final. There remains for us an ample field in which to work in coming, as in the case of foreign countries, to voluntary agreements with the Dominions, and the Colonies also if necessary, regarding their exports to this country.
Unlike my hon. Friends on the Liberal Benches, I am in no two minds as to which Lobby I shall go into to-night. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) says "Hear, hear." I wish he would come with me, too. I shall support this Bill because I believe it to be a great constructive effort by the Government; and, to my hon. Friends opposite, who, perhaps, may still be in doubt, I would say, "Nothing venture, nothing win." If the electors of North Cornwall are satisfied with a negative position—I do not know that they are; that remains to be seen at the next General Election—at all events the other agricultural constituencies in the country will not be satisfied with that; they want action. The Minister, in introducing this Bill on Second Reading, said "Here it is." We are satisfied with his explanation, and I hope that the House to-night will give the Bill its Third Reading by a very large Majority, thereby earning the thanks and respect of the agricultural community.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I want to state at the outset, in opposing this Bill, that I fully appreciate it so far as it represents an endeavour to bring order into an industry that requires it very much, and I was particularly interested to hear a good Conservative like the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) lecturing Members on the Liberal benches as to the need for an organised industry. I should have thought that at this late period there would have been no need to enter into a lecture of that description. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in moving the Third Reading of the Bill to-day, stated that the House had now before it the complete structure under which agricultural marketing in this country would take place. That is quite a true statement, but, when we look at the structure, we find that that structure in every detail has been framed to please
the producing interests in this country, and no other interests.
The Amendments that were put forward from time to time, alhough I do not like to make any charges, appeared to me, not only in Committee but also in the House, not to be considered from the point of view of their practicability, but only as to whether they would be acceptable to the producing interests, and it was not from that point of view that I supported any Amendments upon which I spoke. They are to have the advantage of quantitative regulation of both imported and home production and if, as I am prepared to admit in some degree, protection of that kind was necessary, in my opinion it should have been accompanied by some form of joint control more intimate than any that appears in the Bill. Interests other than the producing interests are entitled to receive greater recognition than they have, because the interests which are asking for some more intimacy in the scheme are not the interests that are responsible for the inefficiency in the industry. I am particularly perturbed about the lack of that joint control, especially as I have not been appeased by the suggestions made in Committee that Parliament would give ample opportunities for discussion in this House. We pressed that an annual report might be presented to the House so that a further opportunity to discuss the matter should be available to us, and I think that is all the more important now that I have in mind what occurred in connection with the Milk Marketing Scheme. It was presented at a late hour on the understanding that no one should speak very much upon it. If that is to be the attitude adopted towards all matters of this character which have to come here, the pressure that we endeavoured to exert on the Government to obtain further opportunities of discussing the matter here should have been paid attention to much more than has been the case up to the present.
The Market Supply Committee is a point of outstanding importance. An Amendment was moved to make it much more representative than it is. In my opinion, four is not an ample number to deal with the intricacies of a very intricate industry, and the suggestions that were put forward that a number
such as nine would be conducive to delay, and would not be so helpful as a small committee, I am not prepared to accept. I am of the opinion that nine persons could be found who would recognise the need for caution and also for expedition, and there would be no hampering tendency towards an examination of the problem, complex and detailed as it may be. I said that the Committee was analogous to the Wheat Commission, but that was not accepted by the Government. I think that the details that have to be entered into by the Wheat Commission in considering statistics and being aware of the tendencies in this and other countries and the things it will have to pass under review in working up to what is terned the anticipated supply, are just as complex as in the case of the Agricultural Marketing Bill, and, if it is possible for that committee to function with 15 members, I think that asking for nine in this committee is not overstating the claim that can be made. In addition to that, the Meat and Bacon Advisory Committee is representative of all sections of the trade and, if it is possible for them to work efficiently and expeditiously, I can see no reason why the suggestion that nine should be the number of the Market Supply Committee should not be accepted. I regret also that they have not been given the power of gaining information which might be withheld from them by the interests with whom they were working, and the powers that we suggest they should have may in the future prove to be essential.
Reference has been made to the restriction of supplies and to the way in which it has caused certain persons and societies—I speak particularly with regard to the co-operative societies—to go to Denmark in order to have their factories placed in contact with adequate supplies. We now find that factories in this country which are not prepared to organise themselves in a way which would give the supply of the type of commodity in this country are now to be able to have some say whether they shall return to this country producing what is needed by those who are members of co-operative socities It cannot be too strongly stressed that those working class societies have had to send working
class money to Denmark in order to supply working class needs, and they should not be prevented from bringing their factories and activities back to this country. In addition to that, we find that the Development Board is to be enabled to buy up redundant factories and dispose of them in the interests of private trade and private profit, and yet they are not prepared to allow the return of working class activities.
The licences that are to function under the Bill will, in my opinion, conserve the trade to the people in the trade. The co-operative movement cannot forget its experience during the War, when the interests of private enterprise and private profit exerted themselves to the utmost to cabin and crib the activities of that working-class organisation. They were only prevented because war-time conditions made it inadvisable to allow trouble. The co-operative movement is expanding, and in the expansion it may require to extend its activities into fields that they have not yet entered. With the powers given in the Bill to a producers' organisation to control the issue of licences, the co-operative movement may be refused the opportunity of entering into activities necessary to meet its requirements. There are possibilities of dispute between distributors and producers and, while the Minister has made certain modifications, I regret that the decision has been taken out of the hands of neutral persons. I should have preferred to see those persons vested with the powers given them in Clause 11 as it stood originally. The quantity of production permitted to any producer may be based upon his previous production. That, also, is irksome to an expanding organisation.
It is not against the law for the co-operative movement to expand and, if production in the future is to be based upon what it has produced in the past, and the decision is placed in the hands of persons who may be antagonistic to it, it may find that it is not going to have the freedom that it should have to enter into this work with a view not to what it has done in the past, but to its future needs. For these reasons I support the Amendment.

5.42 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I am sure the House will realise that we are discussing this
Measure in an atmosphere of much more calm and quiet than that with which we began its discussion. It is a good omen for the success of the Measure that after two whole days spent on Second Reading, after 13 days spent in Committee, and a day spent yesterday on Report, we can deal with the Third Reading in what we might call a very anodyne spirit. It is said that "Happy is the nation that has no history," and I will say, Happy is the Bill that has no scenes on its Third Reading Debate. We are faced with the decision of the House of Commons as a whole. I do not think that in any part of the House it has been denied that the time has come for a change. It is true that certain fears have been expressed about the possible results and implications of this change, and those fears have been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), whose practical experience in these matters we all respect and whose sympathy for agriculture as a whole, ex- pressed in many years of personal service, we all deeply admire. He said the farmer fears lest his business may be removed from his byres and his pastures, from his orchards and from his stackyards, to the Lobbies of the Houses of Parliament at Westminster. The farmer has a much greater and more immediate fear just now. It is that his business and his affairs are to be removed to the head offices of the joint stock banks by people who might have very little concern with anything except to make sure that they cut their losses as quickly and as completely as may be. That is what is driving us into these new ways. The necessity of change has been forced upon us by circumstances, for none of us would embark on such courses were it not on account of that.
I regard the real opposition to this Measure as coming from the bench below the Gangway, but I think it is necessary to examine the objections which have been brought up by the official Opposition, for it is true that they have borne the heat and burden of the day, and all of us who sat opposite them in Committee must realise the patience and skill that they have devoted towards working up a case which was in its essence an unfamiliar one to them, and the assiduity and courtesy with which they presented their point of view. When, however, I
turn to the official Amendment, I fear that it must have been drafted by someone who perhaps was not as deeply engaged in the discussions as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). The Amendment says that the Bill
fails to encourage the development of organised marketing under the Marketing Act of 1931.
If it does nothing else, it certainly develops the organised marketing under the Marketing Act, 1931, and it I have an accusation against me on that matter, I would call witnesses from below the Gangway, for I am sure that the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall would say that, far from not developing organised marketing, it has developed it to an extent which causes them the greatest apprehension. The Amendment also says:
confers wide powers for regulating the importation of foodstuffs without establishing machinery for economic bulk purchase.
Surely, the machinery for economic bulk purchase would, as we all agree, have been quite outside both the proposals of the Act of 1931 and the proposals under which we are working to-day. They are complaining that it is this Bill which we have brought in and not another Bill. They are entitled to bring that forward as a flat objection, but it is scarcely a reasoned Amendment which ought to have been put down during the passage of the Bill. Then comes the consumer. The question of the adequate protection of the consumer has been threshed out time and again. Every single safeguard for the consumer which exists in the Act of 1931 is here, and we have reinforced it by other safeguards to the consumer such as the Market Supply Committee. Further, they say that we ignore the plight of the agricultural worker. I gave figures last night to show that the position of the agricultural worker had been fully safeguarded, and that the very necessity for such a Measure as this arises out of the fact that we have in the past safeguarded the position of the agricultural worker so successfully that agricultural wages which in 1924 were at 156, and even in 1925 were 172, are still 173 to-day, whereas the products, as I said last night, from which those wages
are paid have fallen from 161 in 1924, and 159 in 1925, to 112 to-day. That was countered by an eloquent speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who said that this Act was being sabotaged or some such industrial term; it was not being enforced. I have the figures for last year-The number of complaints received were 2,900. There were 2,850 farms inspected including 793 test inspections. We did not stop short of prosecutions. We had 63 prosecutions, 55 of which were judged successful by the court and a large quantity, both of arrears and costs, were recovered. The Act is on the Statute Book and is being enforced. The Act has worked, and the agricultural labourer has been protected. The complaint cannot be justified, by the simple proof of the administrative working of that Statute, as has been recorded in the figures which I have just given to the House. FiNaily the official Opposition complain that the Bill,
does not recognise the necessity for reorganising agriculture on the basis of a co-ordinated national plan.
Again I would say that if there is an accusation which cannot reasonably be brought against this Bill, it is that it leaves out of account planning. If we were to be accused of overplanning or super-planning to such an extent that it was dangerous, not merely to the success of the Measure but to the existence of the State, I should have to defend myself—and I think that I could defend myself—against such an accusation. When I am told that I am doing nothing for planning, I will merely produce from my attache case the report of the Reorganisation Commission on Pigs and Pig Products, the report of the Reorganisation Commission on Milk, the scheme for regulating the marketing of milk, the scheme for regulating the marketing of bacon, the scheme for regulating the marketing of pigs, and the scheme for stabilising the potato industry of Great Britain. I have no doubt whatever that the other commissions and committees which are soon to report will give me yet more to bring forward to rebut that allegation.
I am not really anxious regarding any of the points brought forward by the official Opposition, but I do not deny that there are problems connected with the Bill which might well give any Minister
and any Administration the most serious food for thought. There is, of course, the general attitude of mind which was represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall that control by Parliament had been whittled away, that the consumer was not fully safeguarded, that he disliked regimentation whether from the right or from the left, and still more the setting up of machinery too complicated for human brains to work. I can only reconcile myself by his concluding observation that the difference between us was not only a fundamental one but was so fundamental that it would not be resolved until long after both of us were dead, and I must say that if we are to wait for the solution of the agricultural crisis until long after both of us are dead, I am sure that my demise will come about rather earlier than later. We cannot wait for these what I believe to be long distant events. We have to get out and grapple with the problems of the day.
I reply to his accusation that we are not allowed full control by Parliament by saying that every one of the schemes which I have brought forward has to secure the affirmative vote of each House of Parliament, and that the difficulty which he foresees as to when the scheme is "in course of preparation" or not, will easily be resolved in practice as it has been resolved in the case of the bacon scheme and is being resolved in the case of the fat stock scheme and, both by a tariff and possibly later on by a quota, in the case of the potato scheme. The difficulties which he foresees are difficulties in theory, and if we adopt the ordinary British fashion of attacking the problem when we see it and when it is presented to us and not as it may appear if the whole power of a very skilful brain has been applied in inventing a problem, I am sure that we shall not meet the difficulties which the right hon. Gentle man visualises.
He went so far as to twit me with some provisions regarding the producer-retailer in the milk marketing scheme. If one sets out to read any Clause in any Act of Parliament I have little doubt that one could find words which require a very great deal of cogitation. These provisions, in fact, carry out the suggestions of the Commission that the produce-retailer should contribute towards the cost of equalising the sales of liquid milk and
manufacturing milk. Surely that is a reasonable proposal. He is thus being protected against a position where the market for liquid milk would be swamped by the flood of manufactured milk. Secondly, it is suggested that he should contribute towards and, if entitled to do so, draw upon the fund for the payment of premiums on milk of guaranteed quality. Surely, that, again, is a very reasonable proposition. Thirdly, he should contribute towards the cost of equalising prices between the different regions, which is again, I think, not an unreasonable proposal. The final answer, if I wished for a debating answer, is that all this is done under the Act of 1931 of which he was from start to finish a full supporter.

Sir F. ACLAND: indicated dissent.

Major ELLIOT: At any rate of which the party of the right hon. Gentleman was a supporter. It was put through the House of Commons against the wishes of several hon. Members on these benches including myself. Therefore he must not complain if I do my best to utilise the machinery which he has erected. It is only begging the question to say that it is extremely complicated. I want to know whether it will work. I believe that it will thresh the crop, and if it does, I am sure that neither he nor anyone else will complain.
The procedure of the Act of 1931, and of the Bill of 1933 are of necessity bound closely together. It is necessary for us now, when the House is about to part with this Measure, to review the actual steps by which the enabling Bill which we are passing to-day will fiNaily operate. It is the more necessary Since it will form a great part of the work of many Members of this House in the months immediately to come. Many Members of the House are keenly anxious that these schemes should work and operate, and they will go to their constituencies when the Bill is upon the Statute Book with the desire and intention of explaining them to their constituents and of making sure that they are smoothly and easily operated. Under the Act of 1931—and this is my justification and the accusation in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—the representatives of the farmers themselves work out
a scheme and submit it as their own scheme. If the farmers cannot get men, or time, to work out a scheme, they ask us, the Government, to come along. If they accept our scheme they submit it as their own. There are examples of these at the present time. There is the potato industry scheme worked out by the industry itself, and the milk marketing scheme worked out by the Milk Commission and subsequently submitted by the farmers themselves. It then goes to a public inquiry at which all the objections are thrashed out. It then conies to the Minister who decides whether to put it up to the Legislature or not. If I so decide it goes to each House of Parliament to be examined as a whole, to be approved or rejected by the affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. If each House of Parliament passes an affirmative Resolution, it goes forward to its final stage, which is confirmation by a postal ballot, by a Majority of the producers themselves, requiring a full two-thirds Majority. If it can find sanction from the experts who examine the scheme, if the farmers recommend it, and both Houses of Parliament pass an affirmative Resolution in favour of the scheme, and fiNaily it is approved by a postal vote of two-thirds Majority, I think it will have satisfied every test which can reasonably be applied to it, and producers can ask for the scheme to be put into operation.
But it has been said that these schemes with all this complicated organisation, can be drowned by a flood of imports from overseas. That is where the second Bill which the House is now considering comes in. We say in Clause 1 that if these tests have all been secured or if a scheme which will have to comply with all these tests is in a reasonable state of preparation, then, not the Minister of Agriculture but the Board of Trade, should have power to take such limiting steps with regard to foreign imports as will ensure that such a scheme first, can come into operation and, second, have a reasonable chance of maintaining itself. These are not problems which are singular to this country alone. They have been examined in every country and they are being examined just now by the United States of America in their Farm Relief Bill. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) accused me of having brought this Measure forward at a most inopportune time in view of the
Economic Conference. We make no complaint of the United States dealing with their agricultural problems on the eve of the World Economic Conference. No bigger mockery could be conceived than to say, because of the World Economic Conference, the farmers of Wiltshire are to see their milk being poured down the drain while cans of Dutch milk are brought in, and that this must continue to be done in the sacred name of world economics and cannot be altered because we are having a World Conference. Such a thing would bring world economics, into disrepute and mockery. The farmer, like all men in this country, is a reasonable, commonsense being, and were he faced with such an actual concrete example as that which I have just given, he would say: "Unless world economics can deal with such a problem as that it is bedlam and not economics, and the sooner they break up and go home the better."
The difficulty that we are in will be met by organisation at home and regulation abroad. If there is no organisation there will be no protection, but if there is organisation then I think the producer can reasonably claim that his organisation should be protected against unregulated world production and competition which has brought him disaster in the past. The proposals of the Government in the Act of 1931 and in the Bill of 1933 do certainly mean that we are exposed to criticism, especially from my hon. and right hon. Friends below the Gangway, in connection with the World Economic Conference. I quite frankly face the position with which I am confronted there. I agree that in the draft annotated agenda of the Preparatory Commission, which the experts have brought forward, there are proposals which in Section IV suggest the extensive removal of all forms of trade restrictions, but on the other hand we are entitled to quote Section VI, which deals with the "Organisation of Production and Trade," of which our trade agreements are an example, and those agreements are held up to admiration as veritable islands of safety in the midst of disaster. The commission say of those agreements in the draft agenda:
They have represented an element of order in the midst of disorder, and have constituted what one might describe as islands of safety. They have effectively
contributed, in the case of certain products and certain countries, to the prevention of conflicts and reprisals and the avoidance of tariff increases.
I do not need to go any further than the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) to emphasise that point. It is one of the charges which he brings against me, and from his point of view quite legitimately, that these trade agreements have in fact militated against tariff increases in certain fields. I say to my hon. and right hon. Friends below the Gangway that they cannot have it both ways. If they claim Section IV, I am entitled in my defence to claim Section VI. There is the appearance of conflict between those two sections, but the conflict is inherent in the problem with which they are dealing and is not caused by the attitude which the Government are taking towards that problem.
I only speak for agriculture, although it may well be that the matter will have to be resolved in the marketing of other great primary products as well. Speaking for agriculture, I say that these agreements maintain in themselves, perhaps despite pure economics, some of the occupations of the nation which the nation feels transcend the simple and elementary laws of economics. This will have to be reconciled with the aims and the work of the World Economic Conference, and every nation which comes to that conference agrees explicitly or implicitly that that is so. The Continent of Europe has been accused of many things. It has been accused of economic nationalism and insensate wars but it has contributed sufficient towards the history of the human race to enable us to say that the Continent of Europe has an instinctive clinging to certain modes of life which it feels transcend the elementary laws of economics. There is nothing more certain in the polity of Europe to-day than that Europe is deeply attached to agriculture; agriculture which is carried on under the proprietorship of small men. While the European states have so jealous a regard for agriculture, any conference which suggests that for reasons of cheaper production the peasant of Europe should be swept from his moorings and hurled into some form of proletariat, or some form of farm worker in some collective farm system, will find that it is beating its head against the wall.
Europe is to-day dealing with a great economic crisis, but the desire of Europe to see that its anchorage in the land is not carried away is one of the things which Europe will insist upon in the forthcoming conference. The world will not blame but rather applaud Great Britain if it can work out a scheme whereby the conflict between plough and loom can be resolved, a scheme which will reconcile the black country with the green. The conference is to deal with the problems of world economics, but it is also to deal with the desires of men, and the desires of men are that they should not forget the work of agriculture, the work of raising crops and stock upon their own soil, with their own hands. We say that the interchange of primary products can, and I believe it will, prove to be better done by a system of planned trade than by a system of chaos. I am certain that in the case of agriculture that will prove to be so, and that we can and we will reconcile that with the aims and objects of the World Economic Conference, in regard to which I have been honoured by having been appointed a delegate.
The Bill before us has received a great deal of consideration both inside and outside the House, but it has not yet received all the consideration it requires. It will have to be worked out. The flesh and blood will have to be clothed upon the skeleton of the Bill when the schemes are brought forward. I appeal to all sections of the House. Let us be sure that from each section we do our utmost towards making it a success. Let us make sure that the skill, the time, the work and the patience of Dr. Addison in laying the foundation of this great structure in 1931 is not wasted, and that the Labour party, which has its own contribution to make towards these problems, comes forward whole-heartedly to make that contribution. Let us be sure that the Liberal party, which in the past has done so much for the agricultural labourer and which has been keenly interested in all forms of reform, finds here that the greatest of all reforms, the reform of getting an economic return for the agricultural industry, is the one which it is now determined to secure.
Let us of the Conservative party especially secure that the great fund of public service which has been our pride
in the past, especially in rural affairs, is directed into this field, where it can give more fruitful return than in any other field at the present time. Let us see that the boards are staffed by the best men. Let us see that the resources of uprightness and integrity which this country can draw upon are freely placed at the service of these tremendous experiments. These boards will have to do in a short time that which otherwise would take years to do. They have to organise an industry which is greater than the railway industry, the iron and steel industry or the textile industry, great as those industries may be. The dairy industry itself employs four times as many men to-day as the whole industry of shipbuilding, and the dairy industry is only one of the industries which we have to reorganise under the provisions of this Bill and its associated Measures. Here is a task for all parties. It is not perhaps the only task that we have, but I am certain that it is one of the greatest.
The only fear that I have in connection with these Measures is the failure at home. I believe the foreign producer sees and sympathises with the plight of the British agriculturist. In the negotiations we have had with him we have found it possible to come to arrangements with him, and I am sure as my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) said we shall also be able to come to arrangements with the Dominion producers. But nothing can make up for failure at home. These schemes depend primarily on confidence and understanding at home. Let us be sure that no accusations of treachery are allowed to go uncontradicted. Let us be sure that no muddle-headedness is going to produce a false dilemma, where we shall have so many real dilemmas to resolve. Let us be sure that we believe we can do this thing. If we believe that we can do this thing we have gone three-fourths of the way towards getting it done, and if we can get it done, then, if for that reason alone, this Parliament will be well worthy of record in the history of the country.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 66.

Division No. 205.]
AYES.
[6.14 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Goff, Sir Park
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Albery, Irving James
Goodman, Colonel Albert W
Moreing, Adrian C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Granville, Edgar
Morgan, Robert H.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, William Shepherd


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, Patrick


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Hales, Harold K.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
North, Edward T.


Blindell, James
Hanbury, Cecil
O'Connor, Terence James


Bossom, A. C.
Hanley, Dennis A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Boulton, W. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Palmer, Francis Noel


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Harbord, Arthur
Patrick, Colin M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pearson, William G.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hartland, George A.
Penny, Sir George


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Broadbent, Colonel John
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Petherick, M


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Burghley, Lord
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Burnett, John George
Hornby, Frank
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ray, Sir William


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Horobin, Ian M.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Robinson, John Roland


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chetter, City)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ross, Ronald D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Clarke, Frank
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Clarry, Reginald George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Salt, Edward W.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Conant, R. J. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cook, Thomas A.
Law, Sir Alfred
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cooke, Douglas
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cooper, A. Duff
Lees-Jones, John
Scone, Lord


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Levy, Thomas
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lewis, Oswald
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Liddall, Walter S.
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Cross, R. H.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n amp; Kinc'dine, C.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Locker-Lampson, Rt.Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Donner, P. W.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Doran, Edward
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Soper, Richard


Drewe, Cedric
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lymington, Viscount
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Eales, John Frederick
Mabane, William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Eastwood, John Francis
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spens, William Patrick


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Hon. O. F G. (Westmorland)


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stevenson, James


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McKie, John Hamilton
Stones, James


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Storey, Samuel


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strauss, Edward A.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Maitland, Adam
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tate, Mavis Constance


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thompson, Luke


Glossop, C. W. H.
Milne, Charles
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles




Thorp, Linton Theodore
Ward, Sarah Adelalde (Cannock)
Wise, Alfred R.


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Turton, Robert Hugh
Wells, Sydney Richard



Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wallace, John (DunferMilne)
Whyte, Jardine Bell
Mr. Womersley and Major George


Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Davies.


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Sir Parcy
Pickering, Ernest H.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Briant, Frank
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McKeag, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

FINANCE BILL.

Further considered in Committee, [Progress, 25th May.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 22 (Income Tax for 1933–34) and 23 (Higher rates of Income Tax for 1932–33), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 24.—(Amendment as to payment of tax by instalments.)

6.24 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 17, line 21, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
in the case of any person whose total income from all sources does not exceed seven hundred and fifty pounds.
This Amendment, I am sure, will rather astonish the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming from the Opposition, because it is indeed a most helpful proposal so far as the Government are concerned. Nearly every other Amendment to the Budget which has been proposed from any side of the House has been for the purpose of taking away some revenue from the Chancellor, but this Amendment will put millions of pounds into his pocket, and if that is not helping him I do not know what help he requires. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Budget he made this statement:
I particularly sympathise with those living on comparatively small incomes to whom this payment of three-quarters in one lump in January comes at a particularly difficult time.
We are dealing in this Clause with the change which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making from the practice that has recently prevailed of the Income Tax payer paying 75 per cent. of the amount due in January and 25 per cent. in July. The right hon. Gentleman in the Budget is now equalising the situation and has provided that payment shall in future be made on a 50–50 basis. The Amendment I am proposing would have the effect that a man in receipt of an income of £750 per annum or over would not enjoy the benefit of the change which is now being made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor ought to accept the Amendment because, as he said in his speech, he has particular sympathy with those persons with small incomes. I do not know what a small income means to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to the Majority of Members on this side of the Committee £750 per annum could not be regarded as a small income. When, however, he came to consider what this equalisation of payments on a 50–50 basis would cost, the-right hon. Gentleman said:
I found to my dismay that it would involve a loss of revenue of £12,000,000.
He qualified that statement later on by saying:
It was true that it would not be a genuine loss but would only be a postponement of revenue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1933; col. 62, Vol. 277.]
That is exactly what will happen in equalising the payments on a 50–50 basis, but we feel that the State is entitled to call upon all Income Tax payers whose income is over £750 a year to continue to pay on the plan that has been in operation during the last few years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has complained of the great difficulty in balancing his Budget, but ii he accepts this Amendment all his difficulties will be removed. If he wants to pay the American Debt he can do so provided he accepts this Amendment. At any rate he will be able to pay part of it—I must qualify my statement to that extent, because I do not remember the exact amount that is due, and I am not alone in not knowing the amount that we owe America. It depends, I suppose, on the fluctuations of the dollar and its relation to sterling. But I will not be drawn into a discussion of high financial problems. I should like to know how many persons are involved below the £750 Income Tax limit, and how many above that limit; I am sure the Treasury officials will be able to pass that information on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be well advised to accept this Amendment. He made the statement that the total sum to the revenue would remain the same whether 75 per cent. was paid in January and 25 per cent. in July, or whether payment was made on a 60–50 basis, but if he accepted this Amendment he would have the use of £12,000,000 for the first six months in the year, which he would not get on a 50–50 basis. To have the use of enormous sums of ready money must be an advantage to the Treasury. I have heard it said that if you invest several millions you can live fairly comfortably on the interest accruing therefrom for a day or two, and therefore to have the use of this money at an earlier period, say for the first six months of the year, on the lines suggested in the Amendment, would be of great benefit to the Exchequer.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I support the Amendment. I rather anticipate the reply that will be made to it, because I have been
looking up the Finance Bill Debates of last year, and I find that we then moved a new Clause in the opposite sense to what is now proposed—to do away with the three-quarters instalment for all incomes—and I read the reply made on that occasion by the present Minister of Agriculture, who put forward the argument that the thing could not be done because the money was required. As against that, I put up this argument. We have put down certain Amendments and new Clauses which would require the expenditure of money, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably tell us that there is no money available to do what we are asking for, and that our proposals would unbalance the Budget, and therefore cannot be entertained. We want by this Amendment to release a certain sum of money so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have something to spare when we come to make other proposals.
Those in receipt of big incomes must now have got over the difficulty and the hardship which was experienced at first when this method of paying Income Tax was introduced. When we have to pay a new demand we always grumble, but we gradually become used to it and accept it as in the ordinary course of things. The people with smaller incomes with whom we are more closely in contact, have felt this demand very keenly. It has been very hard upon them to pay three-quarters of their tax round about Christmas time. We agree with the Government in granting the concession to those with the smaller incomes, but we do not agree with it in the case of the larger incomes. As a result of our Amendment there would be some surplus, though I have not been able to get out the exact figure, and money would be available which could be spent to better advantage under our proposals than under the Government's present proposals. It may appear contradictory that we should now bring forward something which we opposed last year. I am trying to put forward arguments to show why we are doing that. It is in order that there shall be money available when we bring forward our other proposal, and I do not think that the Committee can well resist that line of argument. The Financial Secretary will probably be ready with the argument about what we did last time, but I do not think he will
have thought about my second line of argument as to releasing this money for better purposes.

6.35 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. Member who moved this Amendment told us that it was one of the Amendments moved from those benches which would definitely be helpful to the Exchequer, and he anticipated that I should welcome it. His knowledge of the classics will remind him of the line about fEarlng the Greeks even when they bring gifts, and I have some suspicion of the hon. Member's motives. I feel inclined to doubt whether it is for the purpose of helping the Government that he is putting forward this suggestion, and I am confirmed in that suspicion by the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). He is evidently under the misapprehension, which I think is shared by the Mover of the Amendment, that the money which would be released if the Amendment were accepted would be available every year for the purpose of bringing in some other Measures which hon. Members opposite might desire. Let me say at once that this is a non-recurring item, and if the money were released by withdrawing this concession from some of the Income Tax payers, it could not be used to finance any sort of recurring expenditure.
There are two objections to this Amendment. The first is that it is entirely contrary to all principles of Income Tax. The principle of Income Tax is that the tax is graduated according to a man's income and his family responsibilities. That graduation is effected by means of different rates of tax and also by various allowances which Income Tax payers are entitled to receive. When you have made that graduation you have assessed as nearly as you can the different proportions of contribution which should be made by different taxpayers who have different incomes and different family responsibilities. To introduce a new source of differentiation and to say that, in addition, there shall be a graduation in relation to the dates on which the tax is to be paid, would be something entirely new and would ignore the fact that the whole differentiation has already been made. The second objection is that the proposal would be impracticable even if
desirable. Income Tax is assessed upon a man's ordinary income, and also on the income from which tax is deducted at the source. The income from which the tax is deducted at source is of course income received in the current year. Therefore, it would not be possible to find out the people who were to come under this differentiation until the end of the year in which the differentiation was to occur. The hon. Member will see, therefore, that it is not practicable. That perhaps is the minor reason of the two, and the Major reason I have already advanced.

6.39 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I am afraid that neither of the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is convincing. As regards practicability, it is just as practicable to do this as to give any other allowance to a person assessed for Income Tax. When the time came for demanding the three-quarters of the tax, anybody whose total income was shown by his assessment to be less than £750 would be entitled to claim a rebate on that payment, and would only have to pay one-half. It would be a perfectly easy arrangement from the administrative point of view. As regards his second point, the right hon. Gentleman gave that away in his Budget speech when he said that he particularly sympathised with those living on comparatively small incomes. If his argument were right that the whole adjustment between different classes of Income Tax payers was made by reason of family allowances and so forth, he surely would have sympathised with all Income Tax payers and not with the small Income Tax payer in particular. He knows that although these adjustments theoretically make the tax fair for everybody, those with large incomes find it easier to pay Income Tax than those with very small incomes, and that the system of collecting three-quarters in January fell particularly hardly upon those with small incomes. The man who had not reserves with which to buy Christmas presents and so forth was very hardly hit.
The right hon. Gentleman admits that that was what caused him to look in the bush and to find "the ram caught in the thicket." He caught the ram in order
that he might sacrifice it in the interests of the small taxpayer—the poor child— and not in the interests of the Super-tax payer or the more grown-up individual. As far as we can make out, this Amendment would mean that a large sum would be available, not, it is true, for relief of recurring taxation, but for such purposes as development work in the distressed areas. That is a vital matter at the present time, and something on which this money, whether it is recurrent or not, could be well spent. It could be spent on Capttal or semi-Capttal works; it would attract no interest and therefore impose no increased burden on the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or slum clearance."] Or slum clearance. In fact, this would be an ideal sum with which to do work of that sort because none of the usual arguments against borrowing money for these purposes could be applied to it. It would not be a question of borrowing; it would be something, as the Chancellor said, like a ram caught by the horns in a thicket. It would be there, available, and would not jeopardise the future finances of the country. We feel that this is not a matter to be lightly brushed aside, and we shall certainly support the Amendment in the Lobby.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman took occasion to refer to his classical knowledge, but, not being a classical student, I did not follow him very well in his reference. I wonder, however, if he has ever read one of the classics of English literature, "The Merchant of Venice," in which there is a certain character called "Shylock" who was willing to sacrifice a man's life in order to achieve his object. I do not pretend to be an Income Tax payer in the sense in which the term is used in the Finance Bill. I happen to be one of those who get a little assistance by being allowed to pay it in instalments. But I consider that this is a reasonable Amendment. It seeks to take nothing from the Exchequer. It only asks that those should be relieved who find it a serious problem at the beginning of each year to face the responsibility which the Government have placed upon them The payment of these instalments may be all right for those who have money to burn—like some of my hon. Friends on these benches. [HON. MEM-
BERS: "Hear hear!"] Well, if they have, they burn more midnight oil than money. In this Amendment we are anxious to do a good turn to the middle class, who have always been looked upon by hon. Members opposite as the backbone of the country and as the people who have made the country what it is—and what is it?
As one of the possible beneficiaries under this Amendment, I would say that we are only asking you to realise that, after all, people can only pay when they have got the money. Do you want to force people into debt? The ordinary man included in this Amendment needs to borrow money to meet his Income Tax demands. [An HON. MEMBER: "Come over here !"] No, I had enough of your persecution when I was an ordinary labourer to know exactly what going; on your side means. I was born in hostility to it, and I will carry on being hostile. I am supporting this Amendment on behalf of those who would not vote for me if I gave them £l for every vote they gave. They are congenital opponents of mine, born for the purpose. I am doing my best to support the Amendment because it gives fair-play to the Majority of those who back you. They do not support us, and we are supporting those who are against us.
Surely, on those grounds the right hon. Gentleman ought to be a bit more soft in his answers and not fly to the classics to defend himself. He has not lived up to his reputation as a friend of the middle class. I remember reading a speech of his noble father's, in which he championed the interests of the middle class, the small ratepayer who was the backbone of his Birmingham policy, and in which he said that everything that they made out of their municipal experiments in Birmingham was going to relieve the small tradesmen and people of that kind of the financial claims that might be made against them by the municipal authorities. We are asking for the same thing to-day on a national ground. The right hon. Gentleman's father cleared the slums of Birmingham. It was a scheme similar to this in principle, if not in detail. The money he saved on the swings he spent on the roundabouts, and all the boasting that has been made in the City
of Birmingham has been based upon the kind of policy which we are adumbrating in this Amendment. We ask you to level up those who are least able to bear the burden, to let them pay exactly the same

amount eventually, but to give them this opportunity of paying it not all at once.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 284.

Clause 25 (Continuance of allowance for repairs under 13 & 14 Geo. 5. c. 14, s. 28) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 28.—(Transfer to Exchequer of balance of War Loan Depreciation Fund.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.12 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: This Clause deals with the unexpended balance of the Depreciation Fund established in connection with the 5 per cent. War Loan, 1929–47, and the 4 per cent. War Loan, 1929–42. I
think that the sum dealt with amounts to something like £5,000,000. A better use might be made of this £5,000,000 than transferring it to the Exchequer. There is a vital need for money of this description to be used in other ways. If it had been possible, we would have moved that this money should have been transferred to a fund for the assistance of necessitous areas, and for the development of public works. No one in this House will deny the immediate need of some of those particular areas. The Government have admitted it. As a matter of fact, I understand that the Government desire to make some of the well-off areas come to the rescue of the necessitous areas. Many of us who come from these areas wish to know what has become of the negotiations in connection with the matter.
Everyone will admit that £5,000,000 put into use for the purpose of helping these areas would do more good than putting the money into the dead hands of the Treasury. I think the term used is that it would "fructify" in the hands of the people. Here are those great areas which at one time were among the most important in the country; which were the real foundation of this country's life, and in their time, and even now, are among the primary sources of life industrially, commercially and financially of this State. Yet when you go to the North or to the South you not only find hundreds of thousands of people who are in dire need, but areas which are so hardly pressed that bankruptcy is almost within sight for them.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is not in order in arguing this point on this particular Clause. The Clause is founded upon a Financial Resolution which is very definite and limited. It says:
That the unexpected balance of the Depreciation Fund established in connection with the Four per cent. War Loan (1929–42) and the Five per cent. War Loan (1929–47) shall, at such time as the Treasury may determine, be paid into the Exchequer.
We cannot argue the uses of that fund.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not possible to argue that there is a better way of dealing with this £5,000,000?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I do not think it is on this Clause.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Is it not competent to argue that the Exchequer, having obtained that £5,000,000, should then pay it out and use it for the purpose of necessitous areas?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Member can get a Financial Resolution authorising that, it will be competent to argue it.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I understand that there is no Financial Resolution authorising its use, but that the Resolution merely states that it is to be paid into the Exchequer. Are we to understand that it is to remain there for ever?

The CHAIRMAN: There are all sorts of Resolutions and decisions of the House which will allow the money to be paid cut of the Exchequer.

Sip S. CRIPPS: We have heard from the Government that they intend to assist the necessitous areas, and they have given an undertaking that they will do so. Cannot we assume that they will bring forward a Financial Resolution in order to implement their promise? That is what we are asking them to do.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member can assume that, but he cannot discuss it on this Clause.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Is it not competent to argue that, having had the statement from the Government that they intend to do this work for necessitous areas, this is an opportunity for them to use a certain Capttal fund which is being paid into the Exchequer?

The CHAIRMAN: No, because on that theory the hon. and learned Member can discuss anything at all on this Clause. I am afraid that I must rule that out.

Mr. LAWSON: I am sorry that you cannot allow us to discuss this important subject on this Clause. It seems to us that this £5,000,000 which is placed in the hands of the Government could be usefully spent in other ways. The Government might carry out what seems to be their policy of expenditure on public works. It seems to us to be possible to use this fund for that purpose. We are going to challenge this Clause, because we think that £5,000,000 can certainly be used usefully in carrying out a policy which would bring life to necessitous
areas and be more usefully used than allowing it to be in the hands of the Exchequer for the relief of the Income Tax payers. I am sure that if they had to decide upon this matter they would rather yield to the needs of those areas and the people who live in them than be relieved themselves.

7.20 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: There is an important aspect of this Clause with which my hon. Friend has not dealt. It is that the money which is being taken here is a Capttal sum and that it is apparently going to be used for some ordinary revenue purpose. One has always understood that one of the criteria of Conservative finance is that we should not take Capttal sums and use them for revenue purposes, but that we should draw a clear distinction between revenue and Capttal and see that we get sufficient revenue in the year to meet all revenue purposes. As you, Sir Dennis, have stated, it is impossible to trace this particular £5,000,000 to any particular fund in the way of expenditure, but I may remind you that it was this £5,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer described as the ram caught in the thicket. It was the nest egg which he discovered when he was looking round for the purpose of relieving the Income Tax payer. Indeed, he told us, indirectly at any rate, that he would have been unable to relieve them unless he had discovered this sum of money. I want to ask the Financial Secretary whether he considers it a proper and sound financial proceeding to take a sum of money which has been put aside in a Capttal sinking fund, in a year when the Government are borrowing for another Capttal sinking fund and are paying money out of revenue for a sinking fund, and use it for revenue purposes; and not only for revenue purposes, but for the purpose of remitting a certain amount of taxation during the year. Can he justify on any sound financial criterion such an expenditure of the money?

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the Financial Secretary to answer that question. The hon. and learned Gentleman's point is again out of order on this particular Clause. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech related this particular
money to a particular object, but that has been discussed on a previous Clause and has been disposed of. This Clause merely transfers the fund to the Exchequer, but it does not say on what the Exchequer is going to spend it. It does not say whether the money is to be spent for Capttal or for revenue purposes.

Sir S. CRIPPS: As I understand it, money transferred to the Exchequer at such time as the Treasury may determine must of necessity when it gets into the Exchequer form part of the revenue balances of the Exchequer. I should like to ask your guidance whether that does not necessarily follow from the form of this Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: The money goes into the Exchequer to form part of the balances, but it can only be dealt with as authorised by this House in the ordinary form of financial procedure.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Am I not right in supposing that it can only be dealt with for revenue purposes under any existing authorisation which the Exchequer at this moment holds from this House?

The CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but the authorisation does not arise on this Clause at all.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Am I right in assuming, in a discussion of this Clause, that Exchequer moneys can only be expended on matters so far authorised by this House?I am surely not entitled to assume that some fresh authorisation is coming forward. As this £5,000,000, when the Clause is passed, will be paid into the Exchequer balances and will be spent according to existing authorisations, I cannot go beyond that, but I am unaware that there are any existing authorisations for expenditure on Capttal purposes.

The CHAIRMAN: That may be so. The hon. Member cannot discuss here whether it is to be expended for Capttal or whether it is to be expended for revenue purposes. The only opportunity of discussing how this money is to be spent is when Estimates are brought before the House for the expenditure of money.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I must limit my comment to the taking of money which is clearly Capttal money when the Govern-
ment have put no proposals before the House of any sort to spend it for Capttal purposes, and I must ask the Financial Secretary whether he will inform us if the Government intend to bring forward any proposal as regards the expenditure of this £5,000,000 of Capttal money for Capttal purposes or whether they do not.

The CHAIRMAN: I must rule that out of order. When once this fund gets into the Exchequer, it is no longer a definite fund and the expenditure of it cannot be discussed.

Sir S. CRIPPS: This money is not yet in the Exchequer, and we are objecting to it going there. Before we vote on the Clause we desire to know whether there is any proposal to spend it for Capttal purposes. This is Capttal money in a separate Capttal fund, and we object to it going into the Exchequer without any plan or information as to how it is to be spent.

7.26 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I do not want to appear discourteous to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but, in so far as the Rules of Order permit me, I will give him an answer. We all fall victims to the narrow Rules of Procedure sometimes, and I very much condole with the hon. Members opposite. As they know, this Depreciation Fund is being taken into the Exchequer because the purpose for which the money was required has now lapsed. In those circumstances, it is only natural that it should be taken into the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend in his Budget speech explained the circumstances in which it was being taken into the Exchequer and the circumstances in which it would be taken out. His speech closely connected this fund with the concession to the Income Tax payers. These are two non-recurrent items. This fund is non-recurrent, and the purpose for which it is to be used is equally non-recurrent. I hope that without transgressing the Rules of Order, I have been able to give some satisfaction to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 44.

Division No. 206.]
AYES.
[6.50 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dobble, William
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Grunoy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crooks, J. Smedley
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hanley, Dennis A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cross, R. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Albery, Irving James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harbord, Arthur


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hartington, Marquess of


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hartland, George A.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Donner, p. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Doran, Edward
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Drewe, Cedric
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Holdsworth, Herbert


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Dunglass, Lord
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Eales, John Frederick
Hornby, Frank


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Eastwood, John Francis
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Blindell, James
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Horobin, Ian M.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bossom, A. C.
Elmley, Viscount
Howard, Tom Forrest


Boulton, W. W.
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Braithwaite, Maj. A.N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hurd, Sir Percy


Briant, Frank
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Iveagh, Countess of


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Brown,Brig-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Burnett, John George
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Ganzoni, Sir John
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Law, Sir Alfred


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lees-Jones, John


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Levy, Thomas


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gaff, Sir Park
Lewis, Oswald


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Goldie, Noel B.
Liddall, Walter S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Clarke, Frank
Granville, Edgar
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Clarry, Reginald George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Colfox, Major William Philip
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Lymington, Viscount


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Conant, R. J. E.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mabane, William


Cook, Thomas A.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Cooke, Douglas
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Cooper, A. Duff
Guy, J. C. Morrison
McCorquodale, M. S.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hales, Harold K.
McKeag, William


McKie, John Hamilton
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stevenson, James


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Maitland, Adam
Ray, Sir William
Stones, James


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rea, Walter Russell
Storey, Samuel


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Strauss, Edward A.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Martin, Thomas B.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Milne, Charles
Robinson, John Roland
Thompson, Luke


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Moreing, Adrian C.
Ross, Ronald D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess or


Morgan, Robert H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Turton, Robert Hugh


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Morrison, William Shephard
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Munro, Patrick
Salt, Edward W.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Sanderson, sir Frank Barnard
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-


O'Connor, Terence James
Scone, Lord
Wells, Sydney Richard


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
White, Henry Graham


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Pearson, William G.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Peat, Charles U.
Shuts, Colonel J. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Penny, Sir George
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Petherick, M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Pickering, Ernest H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)



Pike, Cecil F.
Soper, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Potter, John
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Mr. Womersley and Commander


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Southby.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 207.]
AYES.
[7.29 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Maitland, Adam


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Albery, Irving James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Merriman, sir F. Boyd


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Glossop, C. W. H.
Milne, Charles


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glyn, Major Raiph G. C.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Goldie, Noel B.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morgan, Robert H.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Granville, Edgar
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Blindell, James
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bootbby, Robert John Graham
Graves, Marjorie
Morrison, William Shepherd


Bottom, A. C.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
North, Edward T.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
O'Connor, Terence James


Briant, Frank
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Guy, J. C. Morrison
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hales, Harold K.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Pearson, William G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Peat, Charles U.


Burnett, John George
Harbord, Arthur
Penny, Sir George


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Harris, Sir Percy
Percy, Lord Eustace


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Petherick, M.


Carver, Major William H.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Clarke, Frank
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pike, Cecil F.


Clarry, Reginald George
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Potter, John


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holdsworth, Herbert
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hornby, Frank
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Conant, R. J. E.
Horobin, Ian M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cook, Thomas A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rea, Walter Russell


Cooke, Douglas
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cooper, A. Duff
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Rentoul Sir Gervals S,.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Craven-Ellis, William
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Robinson, John Roland


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crookshank, Col.C.de Windt (Bootle)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ross, Ronald D.


Cross, R. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crossley, A. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Curry, A. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kimball, Lawrence
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Salt, Edward W.


Dickie, John P.
Law, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)


Donner, P. W.
Lees-Jones, John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Doran, Edward
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Drewe, Cedric
Lewis, Oswald
Savery, Samuel Servington


Dunglass, Lord
Liddall, Walter S.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Eales, John Frederick
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Eastwood, John Francis
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Elmley, Viscount
Mabane, William
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n amp; Kinc'dine, C.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smithers, Waldron


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McKeag, William
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McKie, John Hamilton
Soper, Richard


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J




Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Thompson, Luke
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wells, Sydney Richard


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Spens, William Patrick
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Stevenson, James
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Stones, James
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Storey, Samuel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.



Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tate, Mavis Constance
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Womersley.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dobble, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. John.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James

CLAUSE 26.—(Provisions as to permanent annual charge for the National Debt for 1933–34.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.58 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give us some explanation as to the reason for certain changes in this Clause. If my memory serves me aright, in the 1928 Finance Act the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made a provision, which was binding upon the Chancellor in 1929 and his successors, that the annual charge in respect of the National Debt should be £355,000,000. That money was to cover, of course, two items, namely, the cost of interest and management and also a Sinking Fund. I think it will be agreed by everybody that, as the interest
falls, so the Sinking Fund would naturally rise in amount. Now under Subsection (1) of this Clause, that fixed sum of £355,000,000, which was to have been the annual charge, is now reduced to £224,000,000, a drop the Committee will see of £131,000,000. This £131,000,000 is made up by three items. There is the abolition of the Sinking Fund, saving, by way of conversions, of interest amounting to £30,000,000, and also a saving of £40,000,000, due to the low interest on Treasury bills. On this occasion the Sinking Fund is abolished. I will not speak of the wisdom of that kind of finance. In ordinary times we would regard it as thoroughly unsound. Whether the present condition of affairs justify it, I need not discuss.
The abolition of the Sinking Fund raises difficulty in regard to certain specific sinking funds which are statutorily attached to particular parts of the National Debt. Under Sub-section (2) of this Clause, money is to be provided for those specific sinking funds by means of fresh borrowing. We are to borrow to pay off debts. As I understand it, the £7,000,000 of which the Chancellor
spoke in his Budget statement is earmarked for that particular purpose. Now the £224,000,000, to which a reduction has been made this year, is not merely a charge for this year; it is to be the "permanent annual charge." It is to be binding upon the successors of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I put a proposition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this way: Suppose there were a rise in the rate of interest of Treasury Bills, then, Since the figure is £224,000,000 and there is no Sinking Fund, clearly, with the rise of interest, the actual cost of management and interest to the State may very well exceed £224,000,000.
To the degree that it exceeded £224,000,000 the Budget would be unbalanced even this year. Not only would it be unbalanced but, to the degree that it exceeded £224,000,000, we would have what might be called a negative sinking fund. We might easily see a rise in the rate of interest this year, and certainly it might happen in future years; although with regard to future years it would be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter the terms of the Finance Bill. Even this year we might have a rise of the rate of interest, and to that extent the Budget would be unbalanced. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be so good as to give us some justification for the change indicated in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this Clause? We have no intention of voting against the Clause, but we want some statement on the subject.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will do my best to answer the point which the hon. Member has put to me. First of all, I think it may be that the word "permanent" has been a source of difficulty to the hon. Member. The word "permanent" has reference to the structure which has been the form in which we have made our Fixed Debt Charge for a number of years. Circumstances have changed completely, but we keep the framework of that structure in being, and accommodate the changed provisions we are making to the permanent structure in that framework. It does not mean that the sum included in the Fixed Debt Charge is permanently £224,000,000. The sum previously represented by £355,000,000 is now represented by the £224,000,000.
It is perfectly true that the original Fixed Debt Charge comprised both interest and Sinking Fund. The interest varied from year to year and, in varying, might reduce the amount available for the Sinking Fund. If there is no Sinking Fund provided, and there is an increase of the cost of management and interest of the debt additional borrowing has to take place to meet the deficit which would not otherwise have been caused. I think that will make clear the question of this particular arrangement.

7.7 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with one point. He says that this structure has been continued because it is the structure laid down in 1928. Surely the whole basis for that structure has gone. A. fixed sum, covering interest payment and Sinking Fund, was to be put aside annually. There was always latitude in the Sinking Fund for an increased rate on Treasury bills and so forth. As long as one had that latitude in the Sinking Fund, it was a wise and proper thing to make the permanent annual charge on a permanent fixed basis. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated interest on Treasury bills at the present rate and put that into the sum of £224,000,000?He has not got latitude in his Sinking Fund as in the past, and we want to know if there is any latitude for borrowing if the present extraordinary low rate of Treasury Bill interest rises during the year. If there is not, the right hon. Gentleman cannot do as he could do last year or the year before—fall back on the Sinking Fund for the purpose of making good that interest. This year he has got nothing upon which to fall back, and we are anxious to know whether the rate has been calculated on Treasury Bill interest on the basis of the presen interest —extraordinarily low rates—or whether there is any sum of money in this £224,000,000 which gives some latitude in the Treasury Bill rates daring the ensuing year?

7.10 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What the Treasury have to do is to make the best estimate they possibly can, and they have to take into account possible variations up and down. In circumstances such as this, when the rate of interest
is what I may call abnormally low compared with the experience of past years, it is not likely there is to be any further decrease, and no such decrease has been allowed for. It is also perfectly true that it would have been possible to repeal this system of Fixed Debt Charge and put in an estimate of the amount required for interest. It was considered that this general idea of a Fixed Debt Charge was one which commended itself to the House, and we did not want to suggest that we desired to put an end to that system, but rather to mark the completely temporary nature of the present suspension of the Sinking Fund. It is anticipated in future years, when we are perhaps in a more happy condition, that it may be possible again to restore the Fixed Debt Charge to a sum approximately in the neighbourhood in which it was to begin with, when this particular difficulty about a possible rise in the rate of interest would not occur.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Is there anything in this estimate which gives any latitude for an increase in the rates of interest on Treasury Bills during the year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared at the moment to say exactly on what basis the cost of interest was estimated. If I had had notice of that question, I would have provided myself with the information. At the moment I am not able to get it, but I shall be happy to supply it.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Perhaps at a further stage, if I ask the question again, the right hon Gentleman may give the information?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.

Clause 27 (Amendment as to deficit for 1932–33) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 29.—(Ascertainment of Post Office net surplus.)

7.37 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 19, line 7, after the word "may," to insert the words "by order."
I have three other Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with the same point—
In page 19, line 26, after the word "may," insert the words "by order.
In line 29, after the word "may," insert the words "by order.
In line 29, at the end, insert the words:
(4) Any order proposed to be made by the Treasury under this Section shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be, and shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of that House"—
—and I suggest that they might be discussed together.

Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member proposes to deal with the whole question of Treasury control on this Amendment? Should we be in order in discussing on this Amendment the whole question of Treasury control, which is referred to in a series of Amendments, or should it be taken on another Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if
we were to discuss the hon. Member's four Amendments as one, because I think, in effect, they are one Amendment. If the first Amendment is carried we should then proceed to deal with the others formally; if it is not carried, the others will fall.

Mr. ATTLEE: The question of Treasury control comes up again on Clause 30. Here we are really concerned with control by this House. I have in mind more particularly Treasury control inside the Post Office, which would more naturally arise on Clause 30.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will deal with Treasury control so far as is provided for in this series of Amendments.

Mr. ATTLEE: The object of these four Amendments is to give the House full control over the method of preparing these accounts. Under the Clause the accounts are to be prepared in such form as the Treasury may direct, and there is nothing to say that they should not alter the form year by year. The result is that the Post Office surplus, which is the fund we are going to deal with under Clause 30, remains to be decided, in effect, by the Treasury. On this general question of the Post Office Fund I hold that the relationship between this House and the Post Office should be that whereas this House
lays down the broad lines of policy and the lines of finance, that within those broad lines the Post Office should have the fullest possible control. Further, I would like to see the accounts laid before this House in such a way that we may know clearly what is the contribution of the Post Office to the Exchequer—of what the contribution consists; what is due, let us say, to interest on Capttal; what is due to payments for work done; what is due to monopoly value, and so forth. We should know then what is the additional sum being taken from the Post Office, which really amounts to a form of indirect taxation on the Post Office users. If we leave that to the Treasury we have no guarantee that the accounts may not be varied from time to time, and that may alter the basis of this Post Office Fund.
The scheme as we have it before us is to get out what is the net surplus of the Post Office and lay down a definite sum above which the Treasury shall not be entitled to raid the funds of the Post Office, saying that all above that figure shall remain in the hands of the Postmaster-General. It is of vital importance to discuss in the next Clause not only what the actual datum line should be, but we should be quite clear as to how that datum line is going to be drawn. The suggestion in the Clause is that this whole matter is to be left in the hands of the Treasury. The duty of the Treasury is to look at everything from the rather narrow angle of an institution concerned with getting the greatest amount of revenue it can and keeping expenditure as low as possible. I am hoping that in these two Clauses we shall make a beginning in freeing the Post Office from this control, but that point may arise later. I want this House to lay down by Order what shall be the Post Office net surplus, and therefore it is proposed that the Order made by the Treasury under this Clause shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may he and not come into force until it has been approved by Resolution of this House. This is not the biggest point that arises on this Clause, but I think it is important that this House, and not the Treasury, should lay down the basis of the future finance of the Post Office.

7.44 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: The point which my hon. Friend has raised is really rather a narrow one. It is a question of how these accounts shall be made out. He is familiar with the commercial accounts of the Treasury, which are in the form which has been approved by the Treasury. I presume that the accounts referred to in this Clause will be very much in the same form as the commercial accounts of the Post Office, with which we are all familiar. The point is only that they should be an accurate presentation of the amount by which the revenue of the Post Office, during the last preceding financial year, has exceeded the expenditure on account of the Post Office during that period. That is a matter which can very properly be left to an arrangement between the Postmaster-General and the Treasury. I do not believe that this House is competent to set itself up as a sort of auditor or chartered accountant to tell the Treasury in what exact form these accounts should be presented. It is a piece of technical work which lies within the provInce of any competent chartered accountant or actuary, and it must be dealt with on those principles.
I cannot visualise any useful discussion taking place on the Floor of this House as to the terms of the Order which the Treasury has to make, according to this Amendment. If there is any question—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman suggests that there would be any wangling, or false amounts being shown—it can be raised either on the salary of the Postmaster-General or on the salary of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The House has ample opportunities of raising any serious point in that way, in regard to what is a purely technical and a rather expert question of the exact form in which the accounts should be drawn. That is not a fit and proper subject for laying a Paper on the Table of the House, and for debating a Motion after eleven o'clock. We get a great many Motions after eleven o'clock. I think that that is a very useful form of procedure for many purposes, but that this is not the sort of purpose for which that procedure is best employed.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: It is perhaps rather impertinent on my part to follow two
ex-Postmasters-General. There was some variation between them as to whether the point raised was a wide or a narrow one. In my view, the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) raised a very important issue as to parliamentary control, and in Budget matters particularly it is necessary that we should keep an eye on that aspect of things. The point raised in one part of this Debate, that the Treasury should not be able to raid the Post Office, is met by the very Clauses which set up the Post Office Fund. It may be that the hon. Member for Limehouse is not satisfied with the amount which has been fixed as the annual sum which has to be paid over by the Post Office to the Treasury. But there is no raid here; there is a restriction. I was gratified to find that he was in agreement with the general proposal that the Post Office should have some definite control over its surplus fund.
I look at this question from the point of view which is raised by the hon. Gentleman in these Amendments, and I think it must have consideration, not only with regard to this proposal but with regard to subsequent proposals, in order that we may get a proper bEarlng on what the fund purposes to do. It is a proper question to ask whether the establishment of this fund takes it outside the purview of Parliamentary control, and it is a very important question. So far as I can judge, there is no intention of removing it from Parliamentary control, and again, so far as I can judge, the revenue will continue to be paid into the Exchequer, the expenses of the Post Office will continue to be voted annually by Parliament, and the annual Capttal expenditure will be reviewed or authorised by Parliament by periodical money bills, as and when occasion arises.
At first sight it may seem that that is not quite true in regard to this particular fund. May I give in three short sentences what this fund purports to do? In the first instance any money in the fund can be paid into the Exchequer in order to make good a deficiency in the fixed contribution to the Exchequer. That is provided in Clause 30 (5) and (6). There is no question there of any restrictions of Parliamentary control. In the second place, the fund can be used towards Capttal expenditure in the develop-
ment of the postal, telegraph and telephone systems, authorised by any Post Office Act then in force. What is more, the setting up of this fund relieves the Post Office of the burden of paying interest which, in the absence of a fund of this kind, it would have to pay upon money borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners. No additional spending power to the Post Office is implied, and obviously there is no suggestion of Treasury restriction, but rather a greater degree of freedom to the Post Office, in the control of its affairs.
The third point is that the fund can be used in aid of current expenses of the Post Office by being appropriated in aid of the Post Office Vote. The Post Office is the subject of a Parliamentary Debate every year. Details are submitted and discussed, and it would therefore seem that the whole proceedings will come under Parliamentary control in a perfectly full way. The doubt that this fund has aroused is the same kind of doubt that was aroused in the days gone by when other funds of this character were created; for instance, the National Health Insurance Fund, the Widows' and Orphans' Fund, the Old Age Pension Fund, the Road Fund and one or two other funds of that kind that were, in the ordinary sense, outside Parliamentary control. Here, definitely and distinctly, Parliamentary control is in no sense infringed in regard to this fund. It is a fund which is overdue. The Post Office has rather suffered from not having paid sufficient regard to the establishment of a fund of this kind, which in the long run will not only be of great use, but will add materially to the development and advancement of the activities of the Post Office. I am satisfied that there is no relaxation of Parliamentary control over the fund.

7.54 p.m.

Sir ALFRED LAW: I do not agree with the insertion of the words "by order." Clause 2 (4) says:
Any statement prepared under this Section shall, as soon as may be, be laid before Parliament.
That seems to cover any objection that has been made in this Debate. I do not think that the Amendment should be pressed.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

7.57 p.m.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Clause and the Amendments do not raise the question of Parliamentary control or Treasury control but deal with a very minor matter. The Clause simply makes provision as to the method and form of the statement which is to be prepared and fiNaily put before the House of Commons, and which is to be the means of ascertaining the Post Office net surplus. It provides that the ascertainment shall begin in the current financial year, that the Treasury shall determine the method of calculating the particular items, and that when that particular method of ascertaining them has been found, a definite statement shall be presented to the House of Commons. The Clause involves no more than that. If hon. Members are interested in looking at precedents, and of course there are a number of Acts of Parliament under which calculations have to be made in a particular form, there is a useful precedent in the Colonial Development Act, which I have before me. In it, hon. Members will find an almost similar provision that the Treasury is to make an account which has to be presented to the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) will be able to put his point of view much better, as he himself suggested, a little later upon another Amendment which he has upon the Paper. It will be impossible for the House of Commons to deal with the statement as one that is to be debated, because there is nothing to debate; it is simply a matter of presenting to the House of Commons a statement of the method by which the fund is to be ascertained. Obviously, the Treasury are the proper people to do it, and when the Treasury have done it, we make provision for them to report to the House of Commons under another Clause. The bigger question of Parliamentary control in which hon. Members are interested will no doubt arise on a later Amendment. In those circumstances, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not press this matter further.

Mr. ATTLEE: There is only one point. There is no indication that from year to year there should be any change in the basis. Would it be possible to bring in overhead Government charges so as to diminish the amount of the surplus?

Sir K. WOOD: No. This is purely an academic matter of putting certain items on the credit side and certain items on the debit side. The only matter to which I need call the attention of the Committee is that the sum which the Post Office receives for wireless licences is not included in this calculation, as obviously it is not a Post Office matter: that has to be admitted. There is nothing else in this, except the method which is used in the Post Office in calculating the amount which it receives for services to and from other Departments. Those are the calculations involved.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

CLAUSE 30.—(Establishment and application of Post Office Fund.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 33, after the word "that," to insert the words:
the loss on the telegraph service did not exceed five hundred thousand pounds and.
The effect of the Amendment is to make a prior condition of the starting of this fund that the Post. Office shall have reduced its loss to the figure of £500,000. I have great pleasure in moving the Amendment because it will obviously come as water to parched lips. I believe it to be the only economy Amendment to be moved on the whole of the Finance Bill. Of course, we all know the enthusiasm of Members in all parts of the House for economy. Economy has been commended by two very representative and different bodies from whose reports I would like to read short extracts. The first is the Public Accounts Committee, a body specially charged to serve the cause of economy. In the last two years they have called the attention of the House to the serious loss on the telegraph system. I need read only an extract from the last report. In the previous year the Committee had drawn attention to the operating losses on the service, which amounted to £772,000 odd, with an operating income of £4,689,000 odd, and it had increased in the year under review to £972,000, on an income of £4,178,000. Then the Committee added this:
Your Committee think it desirable to bring this subject again before the House, and to point out that in 1930–31 for everyhillingworth of telegraphy enjoyed by the public the State contributed a subsidy of approximately 2¼d.
Another authority is the private Members' Economy Committee, a Committee which worked extremely hard on a very wide field of Government services, and a Committee that deserved the gratitude of the House. On this point they observed, in paragraph 208 of their report:
With regard to the telegraph service, it is doubtful whether this country can any longer afford to run the telegraph system at a permanent lose of £800,000 a year.
Here are two Committees which have drawn attention to the loss. Does any hon. Member really want to spend public money to this extent on telegraphy? There are very many subjects on which all of us are glad to spend public money, but I have never yet heard telegraphy added to the list of services of that kind. I have no possible objection to people spending their own money, but I do not want them to spend mine on telegraphy. It is really ridiculous, in an age when we are told to economise in every penny, when we are told that we cannot afford a national theatre, and are bombarded on all sides with the statement that taxes are injuring every kind of public activity, that we should continue to throw money away in encouraging people to telegraph.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the hon. Member say where any money is lost to the taxpayer on telegraphs?

Mr. DENMAN: This loss on telegraphs reduces the amount that would otherwise be paid to the Exchequer. Does the hon. Member argue that the Postmaster-General can comfortably go on making a loss because it comes from nowhere?

Mr. ATTLEE: My point is that you have a group of businesses called the Post Office, which paid over £9,000,000 to the Exchequer last year, and the hon. Member suggests that taxes pay for the telegraphs. He might as well say that they pay for telephones and stamps and so on.

Mr. DENMAN: The profit of the Post Office as a surplus is reduced by that amount, and the Public Accounts Committee, who are accustomed to deal with accounts, and the private Members' Economy Committee both point out—

8.7 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I do not see how it is possible for the hon. Member to connect that argument with the Amendment. The only effect of the Amendment would be to postpone the establishment of the Post Office Fund until such time as the loss on the telegraph service does not exceed £500,000. The Amendment provides nothing either to increase the efficiency of the telegraph service or to increase the charges for telegrams.

Mr. DENMAN: Perhaps I can explain the argument by the analogy of the encouragement that one gives to a donkey by holding a carrot before its nose. Perhaps it would be more logical not to allow even £500,000 of loss to be left in the telegraph accounts, and to demand that the fund should not be set up until the telegraphs are a self-supporting service. The Post Office knows that it can economise to the extent of reducing the loss to about half-a-million, but it would have great difficulty in wiping out the loss altogether. It really is extremely bad business to make a loss on one great Department of the service and to say "Oh well, we are making fine profits on the rest, and therefore it does not matter." No one expects the Post Office to make a profit on every item of its business. Obviously it cannot. But it should at least pay its way in each of its great Departments, and this Amendment will give it an extremely good excuse for doing so. It is not the Post Office's fault that it has made a loss oh the telegraphs. It is our fault. It was imposed origiNaily by the House of Commons, and it has gone on from year to year for a generation. If by passing this Amendment we choose to encourage the Post Office to reduce this loss, it will do so at once. It knows how to do it [An HON. MEMBER: "By cutting; wages?"] Not by cutting wages; without any reduction of wages whatever; by making a different proportion between-the service given and the charges made to the public. I really need not argue the point any longer. If hon. Members want economy, they will vote for the Amendment.

8.10 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think I need spend long in replying to the Amendment, because the hon. Member is the only one
who is likely to support it. The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the Post Office Fund being set up until the loss on the telegraph service is reduced to £500,000. We must strenuously resist the suggestion, and I ask the Committee to vote against it. In the first place, I do not think that it is by methods of this kind that we shall obtain an improvement in the telegraph service. Because there happens to have been a deficit for some considerable time—it is steadily being reduced—that is no reason for preventing the setting up of this fund.
The hon. Gentleman no doubt has his own methods for dealing with the telegraph business. I am not clear what his proposal is, but I hope that he will send it to me in detailed form, because no one is more anxious than I am to lessen the deficit. The hon. Member has made only a very vague statement about it. Whether he wants to increase the charges or reduce them, I do not know. In any event, I ask the Committee to vote against the Amendment. It is obvious that this is not a matter that applies to telegrams in this country only. It is a state of affairs which applies to telegraph systems all over the world. When telephones are such a great competitor you naturally find a decline in telegraph traffic. But I do not take the view that we need despair, or that one should not make efforts to improve the position. But I do not think that this would be a wise way of doing it, and I should be very sorry to see the setting up of the fund postponed as the hon. Member suggested.

Amendment negatived.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 19, line 35, to leave out the word "eleven," and to insert instead thereof the word "eight."
This Amendment raises the very large question of the finance of the Post Office, and at what point we should draw the line and say: "This amount shall go to the Exchequer and this amount shall be left for the development of the Post Office, for the improvement of the service, or the improvement of the conditions of the staff." The Amendment is based, of course, on the proposals of the Bridgeman report. That report was very interesting on telegraphs and many other things. On this particular point, the
committee took a rather rough and haphazard method of ascertaining the amount that they thought should be Landed over to the Exchequer. The amount taken in the form of profits from the Post Office has been rising steadily during past years. It has gone up from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000 and £7,000,000, and to the very high point at which it now stands. That is partly due, of course, to good management, partly to increase of business, and partly to certain quite fortuitous conditions, and one of these is the low prices obtaining now.
It is a very risky thing, when you are trying to settle what should be the financial relationship between a number of great trading undertakings united in the Post Office, and in the Government, to fix the tribute at a peak time. I suggest that, if there were a rise in prices, there would be a rise in the cost of raw materials, and an automatic rise in wages, and I very much doubt whether increased business would result in as big a surplus as there is to-day. Indeed, the surplus to-day is swollen by reductions in wages, and I think that, as soon as trade improves at all, there will be a justifiable demand for higher wages. Certainly I think the Postmaster-General will agree that there are some grades whose wages he would like to see increased if he could get the consent of the Treasury.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The effect of this Amendment would merely be that, if the net surplus for the last preceding financial year exceeded £8,000,000, the Post Office Fund would be set up, but that has nothing to do with the question of the allotment of the money as between the Post Office and the Exchequer. That question arises on another Amendment.

Mr. ATTLEE: The effect of the Amendment would be to bring in the additional amount to the Post Office practically at once. The point is that, if it is necessary to wait until the sum of £11,000,000 is reached, the Post Office may get something next year, but it certainly will get a very great deal more if the figure is reduced. The two points are intimately connected, but at this point we have to put in the figure of £8,000,000 in order to get in our second point, which is to get
down the datum line, as I would call it, to a somewhat lower standard. I do not know whether it would be convenient to take the whole point on this Amendment. The two are really bound up together. If the figure of £11,000,000 stands, then the figure of £10,750,000 in Sub-section (3) follows naturally, whereas, if the figure is reduced, in accordance with my Amendment, to £8,000,000, then the second figure will be £7,750,000, in accordance with another Amendment which we have on the Paper.

8.18 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should be rather glad of the guidance of the Minister on this point. As I read the Clause, the sum of £11,000,000 merely represents the profit which the Post Office has to make in order to enable the fund to be established at all, and that, once the fund is established, the financial relations between the Post Office Fund and the Exchequer would depend upon the later provisions of the Clause. I am not quite clear whether the alteration proposed here would have any effect whatsoever on the later provisions, assuming that the Amendment were carried, and I should be glad of the guidance of the Postmaster-General on the point.

Sir K. WOOD: I am rather inclined, Captain Bourne, to think that you are right on that point. The only suggestion that I would make, as far as your observations are concerned, is that the Post Office Fund is to be set up on the basis of £10,750,000 plus a margin of £250,000. I think it would be convenient if the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) would develop his argument on that point, and if we could dispose of his suggestion, which I understand to be that the fund should be formed much earlier and at a much lower amount.

Mr. DENMAN: I have an Amendment on the Paper which raises precisely the same point in a rather different form, and, persoNaily, I should concur in the taking of a general discussion now, if that would be convenient to the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If it is for the general convenience of the Committee to discuss the question of the
financial relations between the Post Office and the Exchequer on this Amendment, I should have no objection, and it will then be for the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) to move his Amendment—in page 20, line 13, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven." If the Committee decide that the word "ten" shall stand part of the Clause, that will stop the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—in page 20, line 13, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "seven"—and that would really cover the next two or three Amendment oh the Paper.

Mr. T. SMITH: Would your Ruling cover the provision regarding the Post Office Fund when it is established?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not quite clear to which Amendment the hon. Member is now referring.

Mr. SMITH: I am dealing with the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee)—in page 20, line 24, to leave out from the word "or" to the end of line 27, and to insert instead thereof the words:
for making such augmentations in the wages of the employés of the Post Office and such additions to their amenities and improvements in their conditions of service as the Postmaster-General may, after consultation with the representatives of the staff associations, decide.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that Amendment would be covered. I think that what is covered at the moment would be the relations in regard to the amount of money to be allocated as between the Post Office and the Exchequer. When we have disposed of that question, the question of the uses to which the Post Office Fund could be put would arise on the later Amendment, which I will certainly select.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Does that mean that a general discussion will be taken on all the Amendments following the one which my hon. Friend is now moving, down to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell)?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I suggest that the discussion should, in addition to
the present Amendment, cover the following Amendments on the Paper:
In page 19, line 35, to leave out the word "eleven," and to insert instead thereof the word"twelve."—[Mr. Denman.]
In page 20, line 11, to leave out the word"two."—[Mr. Morgan Jones.]
In line 13, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven."—[Mr. Dewman.]
To leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word"seven."—[Sir S. Cripps.]
In line 14, to leave out from the word "pounds," to the end of the Sub-section. —[Mr. Attlee.]
In line 17, after the word "sum," to insert the words "not exceeding ten million seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds." —[Mr. D. Grenfell.]
Then we should start again on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks)— in page 20, line 21, to leave out the words "with the concurrence of the Treasury"—which raises a completely different point.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: In the first place, we want the Fund to be started at once, and the next point that arises is as to the level at which it should be. As the Rules of Order confine us so that we cannot really endeavour to take a very large slice away from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be out of order, I think, to discuss what is the right amount that should be paid to the Exchequer from the Post Office, but what I really want to discuss is the whole question of the basis. When I was called to order I was pointing out that the Bridgeman Report did not attempt to go into the question of finance at all. The committee laid it down that the starting point should be the average of the last three years; they did not attempt to lay down what should be the principle upon which amounts should be paid by the Post Office to the State. My contention is that it would have been more scientific to lay down a basis, to say that that was what the Post Office ought to have as a surplus —recognising that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now taking is a tax
on the users of the Post Office—and then to say that the amount should be fixed year by year in the Budget, and that, if the Chancellor wanted anything more than he was entitled to on those principles, it must be taken as an ordinary tax. Everyone realises that the present is a difficult time at which to ask the Chancellor for much money, and I am inclined to congratulate the Postmaster-General on having got a hope of receiving something.
When I last spoke on this subject, I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) who seemed to think it was wrong to suggest that anything should be taken for this fund, but that it should be taken from the unemployed first of all. That was the impression that I got from his remarks. In my view it is very important, if it is desired that the Post Office revenues should grow and that a really good service should be given, that the Post Office should be relieved from the position of being a milch cow for the Exchequer. The fact is that a business like the Post Office cannot be run if there is a kind of annual general meeting of shareholders going on day by day in the House of Commons, and if there is a rather rapacious shareholder who is a great clamourer for dividends, and who is entitled to interfere in your operations all the time. I am not saying that that actually occurs in practice, but the position of having Treasury control, which it is their duty to exercise, to see that they get every possible bit of revenue, out of the Post Office and that they check expenditure which is likely to diminish revenue, has a paralysing or, at least, an inhibiting effect on the activities of the Postmaster-General.
The advantage of this is that you are going to get a certain sum. We think first of all that that sum ought to be larger. That, perhaps, will be repelled by the Treasury on the ground that they cannot afford any more. The second point in these Amendments is that we do not like the part of the Clause which says that the contribution of the Exchequer is to be £10,750,000 and thereafter such sums as Parliament may hereafter determine. I believe most inquirers into the Post Office have considered that what you want to get is a fixed contribution. I agree that you can
say that at present it will be dangerous to fix it at the present high level on account of it being due very largely to low prices.
On the other hand, the Bridgeman Report recognised that it was bad for the administration of the Post Office that its profits should be liable to be taken. As far as one can see Chancellors of the Exchequer are always likely to be in difficulties. I have not been long in the House, but in 12 years I have not known a rejoicing Chancellor of the Exchequer. They have always been hanging on with great difficulty. I am very much afraid that, unless we can get a definite basis laid down, we may find this fund raided again. It may be £500,000 this year and next year £2,000,000. At the end of the three yeans it will be such sum as Parliament may determine. That means in these days what the Chancellor of the Exchequer demands, and there is a very great danger that the growth of this fund will be cut short by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in difficulties.
We move to insert this lower sum because we feel that it would be dangerous to have so high a sum as this as a permanency in the very unstable price conditions of the world to-day. On the other hand, we have not put it as low as we should have liked, because we have some respect for the feelings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, but we feel that there is a very great deal that needs to be done. We think that putting it at this extremely-high sum is very dangerous and that allowing the basis to be changed year by year really does not do what the Bridge-man Report required to be done. In fact, it really defeats the whole principle of the Bridgeman Report, which was self contained finance, and certainly I believe we want to get the finance of the Post Office separated as far possible from that of the State. That is to say that it should pay its contribution and then it should be free to run its business with the least possible control from the Treasury. I think that a great deal of the effect of the Bridgeman Report will be lost unless the financial basis is laid down quite definitely.
The methods that I should have liked would be to fix the tribute at a much lower sum, to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer a certain sum as a definite
contribution to taxation for a limited period and thereafter to hope to work down to the actual amount which in my view the Post Office should pay the State. We have to take this as it is. I am sure the Postmaster-General will be sympathetic to the Amendment, though he may not be able to accept it, and I hope the Committee will express its opinion in favour of self contained finance for the Post Office, preventing it being considered as a revenue Department. The point raised in a subsequent Amendment is that, as long as, even though indirectly, the Post Office is considered as a revenue Department, you cannot get rid of Treasury control, and that is one of the vital things in any reform of the Post Office.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: With the principle of much that the hon. Gentleman has said, especially in his concluding sentences, I do not think anyone in the Committee quarrels. The case I have against this particular figure is a purely financial one. It seems to me a little unfortunate that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary is present, because the arguments that I want to adduce are entirely irrelevant to the Postmaster-General. The Government proposal is simply taking a sum estimated at £1,000,000 out of the revenue—deciding now that, in the next Budget we shall have £1,000,000 that we can. spare, and proposing at this moment to allocate it in that way. The case that I wish to submit is that that is entirely premature and extremely undesirable and, indeed, not what the great mass of Members would really desire. It is premature because we do not know anything about the financial position in a year's time. We cannot foretell whether we shall have this £1,000,000 to spare. Such evidence as we have that can be translated into figures is rather discouraging. I recollect certain estimates that the Chancellor made himself. He introduced Budget changes relating to Customs and Excise. He estimated that this year they would produce some £12,000,000 less than was produced last year, and that in the following year that £12,000,000 less would become £14,000,000 less. We are faced in Customs and Excise with a drop of £2,000,000 at this time next year. Similarly the In-
land Revenue changes are to reduce the income next year by about £600,000 over the income of this year.
I believe it to be a very healthy exercise for Members of this House to frame for themselves a schedule of priorities of relief and to make up their minds in what direction relief is to be given supposing there is a surplus to hand out. We who were in the House in September, 1931, remember the serious cuts and the heavy taxation which had then to be introduced and the shock it was to the House as a whole that that had to be done. We who belong to the National Government hope that within the lifetime of this Government some very considerable amelioration of those cuts and of the increase of taxation will be possible. Here for the first time we see available in advance £1,000,000 which is to be handed over to the funds of the Post Office. Is there any Member of the Committee who really thinks that this is the best way in which to treat the money.
I make no apology at all for giving an outline of a schedule of priorities. If there were £1,000,000 we could afford to spare, I would begin probably with an addition to the allowances to the children of the unemployed, not because I claim any additional humanity to that which is common to all hon. Members, but because we all recognise the danger of mainutrition among the youth of the nation. We all realise that if there is any money to spare it should go in slum clearance and things of that kind. I ask in an Amendment which I have put upon the Paper that the fund should start at £12,000,000, that is to say, the estimate of the Post Office would provide £11,750,000, and the reduced cost of telegraphs, if my Amendment could have been accepted, would have added another £200,000 to £300,000. They would have been able to start the fund, and our national finances would not have been burdened. To ask us to pledge this £1,000,000 is something to which I cannot agree.

8.39 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I think the Committee will have some sympathy with me after hEarlng the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). It is perhaps as well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some reasons is not here. The speech has been helpful in
that it illustrates some of the difficulties which arise as far as the Post Office is concerned. It very largely answers some of the contentions put forward by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) who moved the Amendment. It is true that it is a most difficult time, from the point of view of the Post Office, to come to an arrangement of this kind. One cannot imagine a worse period during which to endeavour to come to a reasonable arrangement. I do not think the hon. Member for Limehouse was fully justified in all he said. I acknowledge what he said about the final conclusion on this matter, but I suggest to the Committee that to attempt at this time to put forward a definite scheme based on a definite proposition as to how the fund should be calculated, would not be in the interests of my Department at the present time. It is not possible in the present abnormal situation to say what would be a fair and a sound bargain under normal conditions. That is really the reason why the Bridgeman Report, upon which this Clause is founded, said that in the present state of the national finances it would be impracticable to suggest any other principle than that the Exchequer should be paid out of any revenue of the Post Office a sum approximating to that which it is at present receiving.
It must be emphasised, in view of any criticism of the financial arrangements, that this is simply a three-year plan. At the end of that time the Exchequer and the Post Office will be able to review the position, and let us hope that matters will have so improved that they will be able to put forward a really settled scheme upon a scientific basis. We are not settling to-night any fixed scheme. All we are doing under abnormal conditions is to arrive at a reasonable arrangement as far as the Post Office is concerned. I would say to my hon. Friend who put his case in the opposite direction that there is something to be said from the point of view of the Exchequer in this matter which he ovErieoked. It would be of considerable benefit to the Exchequer if there were a sum available in order to bring about improvements in the Post Office. It would be of considerable assistance to trading interests if certain things could be done at the Post Office which it is not possible to do to-day. If you could improve conditions under
which trade and industry are carried on, it would be of some assistance in dealing with the difficult situation with which commercial interests are faced at the present time. If you could improve facilities so as to enable business men to carry on their businesses more effectively, you would help to deal with the unemployment problem. I suggest that my hon. Friends should not press their Amendments further. They have put their case. If the Amendments were carried it would completely destroy the arrangements I have made with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no possibility of a better arrangement being made at this time, and therefore I hope that hon. Members will not take the matter further. It is obviously in the interests of the Post Office and of the Exchequer that this fair and reasonable arrangement should be confirmed, having regard to the difficult circumstances in which it has had to be made.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should like to congratulate the Postmaster-General upon securing a small victory over the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I should have been very glad if he had been able to push the door a little wider than he has done. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) gave us the impression that it is a very long time Since he last entertained Labour ideals. To judge from the hon. Member's speech, like every other proselyte, he has become more Catholic than the Pope. He wants to increase the margin available for the Treasury rather than to decrease it. He must know that the controversy here, in a way, is not unlike the old controversy in municipal circles. When you have a municipal concern which is making a profit it is not an unfamiliar problem for the municipal administrators as to what shall be done with the profit. They ask themselves whether the profit shall be devoted to the reduction of the local rates or whether it shall be devoted to the purpose of improving the services which have been municipalised. The second object has always seemed most desirable to us.

Mr. DENMAN: My suggestion is not that we should increase the amount of money to be got out of the Post Office, but that we should simply take from the Post Office that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated was available.

Mr. JONES: I had in mind the hon. Member's argument concerning priorities. He is talking of priorities a little late in the day. He is concerned about a million pounds.

Mr. DENMAN: Next year.

Mr. JONES: Yes, and he swallowed £14,000,000 a week or so ago. He is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. He comes here and sheds tears over a comparatively small sum, although the other day he was prepared to give away £14,000,000. It is a little late to begin talking about priorities in that sense. However, I have been diverted from my main argument. My point is, that this problem is not an unfamiliar one in municipal affairs, as to what shall be done with surplus profits. Here is the same problem in connection with the Post Office. We are concerned that the House shall begin to look upon the Post Office as an institution in a different way from that in which it has hitherto regarded it.

Viscount WOLMER: Hear, hear!

Mr. JONES: The Treasury has regarded the Post Office as an instrument which, according to the degree of its prosperity, should subsidise the national finances. I grant that the Post Office as a business ought to contribute to the national finances. We are willing that a sum should be allocated for that purpose, and we provide for it in our Amendments, but once the Post Office as a business concern has made its contribution, like other business concerns, to the National Exchequer, the Postmaster-General should be regarded as a person in charge of a Department which was quite different in character from, say, the Board of Education or some other administrative office.

Viscount WOLMER: Hear, hear!

Mr. JONES: He is at the head of a big business concern, running that business in the interests of the nation.

Viscount WOLMER: Hear, hear!

Mr. JONES: The Noble Lord does me the compliment of cheering what I say and, of course, I understand from what point of view he cheers it, but for us the proposition is different. Our proposition is, and it is a sound one, that the nation
is entitled to secure full control over the development of the Post Office services, and the Postmaster-General acting, so to speak, as the general manager of the Post Office on behalf of the nation, ought not to be hampered by reason of the fact that the Treasury takes a very considerable amount from the resources at his disposal. Our attitude is this: here is the Post Office, admittedly facing difficult times and discharging its task admirably, and we ought to give the Postmaster-General elbow room to move. We do not want him to be hampered by regulations from the Treasury or from any other quarter. We want to give him a chance to be free to develop the instrument in his control, and I am sure that as a business proposition our proposal is in the interests of the Post Office as a business concern. We are acting in strict accordance with the action we take municipally and natioNaily towards any municipally controlled concern or any natioNaily controlled concern. Therefore, in spite of the most seductive appeals made to us by the Postmaster-General I am afraid that we shall have to stand by the Amendment we have moved.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: We have a good deal of sympathy with the Postmaster-General. Our Amendment is put forward in the interests of the Postmaster-General, and I was rather surprised that he did not face up to the Amendment. What we say in the Amendment is that to find a surplus of £11,000,000 before he gets a penny is too much. He argued that it was not, but we say that it is expecting too much that he should find £11,000,000 before he gets any money of his own. I

can well understand anyone in the position of the Postmaster-General wanting to havea fund, but if he has to find a surplus of £11,000,000 he will not have much money to deal with. Therefore, we have moved to substitute £8,000,000 for £11,000,000, and we ought to have the support of the Postmaster-General. That would give him a fund which would enable him to do several of the things that we think he ought to do. I want it to be a fund that will be of some use. The Post Office is entitled to pay an amount each year to the Treasury, but it ought not to be so much as is proposed for next year. Instead of the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to an arrangement as to the surplus for next year on the figure quoted, they ought to have taken the average of past years. I can recollect when the surplus of the Post Office was between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000. Therefore, the surplus of £11,000,000 seems to me an extremely high figure. It is no use the Postmaster-General getting a fund unless it is going to be of some use, and I could point out several ways in which he could use the money if he had it. He could increase the wages of Post Office employés.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will not anticipate Amendments on that subject.

Mr. BATEY: A surplus of £11,000,000 is far too high a figure. The amount mentioned in the Amendment is quite high enough, and I hope that the Postmaster-General will accept it.

Question put, "That the word 'eleven' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 39.

Division No. 208.]
AYES.
[8.52 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Blindell, James
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Boulton, W. W.
Carver, Major William H.


Albery, Irving James
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.)


Alexander, Sir William
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Briant, Frank
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston


Aske, Sir Robert William
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Clarke, Frank


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Broadbent, Colonel John
Clarry, Reginald George


Atholl, Duchess of
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Colfox, Major William Philip


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Conant, R. J. E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cook, Thomas A.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Burghley, Lord
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burnett, John George
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Butler, Richard Austen
Craven-Ellis, William


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Crooke, J. Smedley


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Kimball, Lawrence
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Robinson, John Roland


Davison, Sir William Henry
Law, Sir Alfred
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Dickie, John P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Donner, P. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Doran, Edward
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Liddall, Walter S.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Drewe, Cedric
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Salt, Edward W.


Elmley, Viscount
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Scone, Lord


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McKeag, William
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McKie, John Hamilton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Maitland, Adam
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n amp; Kinc'dine,C.)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Smithers, Waldron


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Gledhill, Gilbert
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Glossop, C. W. H
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Soper, Richard


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Goff, Sir Park
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Goldie, Noel B.
Milne, Charles
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spens, William Patrick


Gower, Sir Robert
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Stevenson, James


Graves, Marjorie
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Stones, James


Greene, William P. C.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Storey, Samuel


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Strauss, Edward A.


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, Patrick
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hales, Harold K.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Tate, Mavis Constance



Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
North, Edward T.
Thompson, Luke


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Nunn, William
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hammersley, Samuel S.
O'Connor, Terence James
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hanley, Dennis A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harbord, Arthur
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Harris, Sir Percy
Palmer, Francis Noel
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hartland, George A.
Pearson, William G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Peat, Charles U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Penny, Sir George
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Perkins, Waller R. D.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pickering, Ernest H.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hornby, Frank
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Horobin, Ian M.
Pike, Cecil F.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Potter, John
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Howard, Tom Forrest
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Womersley, Walter James


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pybus, Percy John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene



Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rankin, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rea, Walter Russell



Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Dr. Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lawson, John James


Buchanan, George
Groves, Thomas E.
Leonard, William


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, Thomas W.
Logan, David Gilbert


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William


Cove, William G.
Hirst, George Henry
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
McGovern, John


Daggar, George
John, William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Dobble, William
Kirkwood, David
Maxton, James




Nathan, Major H. L.
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Parkinson, John Allen
Wedgwood, Rt Hon. Josiah



Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. C. Macdonald.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 20, line 11, to leave out the word "two."

Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 35.

Division No. 209.]
AYES.
[9.7 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McKeag, William


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McKie, John Hamilton


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Albery, Irving James
Falle Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Alexander, Sir William
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maitland, Adam


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Atholl, Duchess of
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gledhill, Gilbert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Gluckstein, Louts Halle
Milne, Charles


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Goff, Sir Park
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Goldie, Noel B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Gower, Sir Robert
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Blindell, James
Greene, William P. C.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Boulton, W. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Briant, Frank
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, Patrick


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph


Broadbent, Colonel John
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hales, Harold K.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
North, Edward T.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Nunn, William


Burghley, Lord
Hanley, Dennis A.
O'Connor, Terence James


Burnett, John George
Harbord, Arthur
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Butler, Richard Austen
Hartland, George A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pearson, William G.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Penny, Sir George


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Carver, Major William H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pickering, Ernest H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Hornby, Frank
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Clarke, Frank
Horobin, Ian M.
Pike, Cecil F.


Clarry, Reginald George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Potter, John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Colfox, Major William Philip
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pybus, Percy John


Conant, R. J. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rankin, Robert


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rea, Walter Russell


Craven-Ellis, William
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rentoul Sir Gervals S.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kimball, Lawrence
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cross, R. H.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Robinson, John Roland


Crossley, A. C.
Law, Sir Alfred
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dickie, John P.
Lewis, Oswald
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Donner, P. W.
Liddall, Walter S.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Drewe, Cedric
Lockwood, Capt. J. H; (Shipley)
Salt, Edward W.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Scone, Lord


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Shute, Colonel J. J.
Storey, Samuel
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Strauss, Edward A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Strickland, Captain W. P.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n amp; Kinc'dine;C.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wells, Sydney Richard


Smithers, Waldron
Sutcliffe, Harold
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Somervell, Donald Bradley
Tate, Mavis Constance
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Somerville, Annesley A, (Windsor)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Thompson, Luke
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Soper, Richard
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Womersley, Walter James


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)



Spens, William Patrick
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Stevenson, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Major George Davies.


Stones, James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph.
Hirst, George Henry
Nathan, Major H. L.


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobble, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mainwaring, William Henry



Question, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move, in page 20, line 13, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven."

9.16 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 20, line 21, to leave out the words "with the concurrence of the Treasury."
I hope the Postmaster-General will explain to us why these words have been inserted. We hoped that with the setting up of the Post Office Fund the Postmaster-General would be free from Treasury control. If everything that is proposed in the Post Office is to come under the control of the Treasury, we shall not be very far advanced. I maintain that for any purpose of checking expenditure in the Post Office, the Treasury is not really the right body. The Treasury has been set up and framed to control the expenditure of spending departments. It looks at all expenditure as an evil It is framed to bite. The first thing that it does is to say "No." That may be all very well, at any rate from the point of view of the Majority of this House, when it comes to expenditure on education and things of that kind, but when you come to a business in which expenditure is balanced on the other side either by definite
takings, or by good will, or by advances to the consumers, or one thing and another, the measure of whether that expenditure is justifiable or not cannot be made by some authority outside the business altogether, which only sees the one side, the expenditure side.
The result is, in practice, that that kind of Treasury control is not really effective in obtaining economy, because the pressure is not put on at the right place. It is put on at a number of particular points which have been put, so to speak, under the Treasury brake for purposes quite unconnected with the Post Office. What you want, and what you should have, in the Post Office is an internal finance department, which measures every scheme, which uses figures for the purpose of judging of the efficiency of the machine, and in which the financial control is applied all the time. I suggest that if you keep in these words, "with the concurrence of the Treasury," you will have the bad old system. I am not saying that broad Treasury control may not be all right, but a meticulous and parsimonious control is quite out of place when you are running a business. No business man would suggest for his firm that every piece of expenditure should be sent up, just as a piece of expenditure, and submitted to a chartered accountant in the City, a person with no actual, detailed knowledge of the business.
No one could run a business on those lines, and I suggest that, if we are to have a new epoch, a fund which the Postmaster-General may use as he thinks fit for developing his business, we have either to trust the Postmaster-General or not. We shall not get the proper way of judging the Postmaster-General by results by putting him under the Treasury. When he comes before this House, tells us what he has spent, and shows what development he has carried out, and when people get the results expressed in satisfaction with the service or otherwise, that is the way to judge the Postmaster-General, but you do not control him adequately by putting him under the Treasury. I believe that anyone who has been at the Treasury will agree with me that there have been instances—I am not saying a whole lot— where Treasury control has not made for efficiency, and that if you wish to have a new system, you must recognise that running a business is different from running a spending department.
I do not want to go at great length into Treasury control, but I believe that even in the spending departments economy is most successful where they have their own finance departments and have developed a continuous and careful control. That, I think, has been done to a considerable extent in the War Office. There is a system built up there of careful financial control, which has effected great improvements. You have a very good finance department in the Post Office, and if, as I believe, that could be used fully, as any finance department would be used in a business, I think you would get far better results than by trying to maintain the control of an outside body.

9.22 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I quite agree with everything that the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has said about Treasury control as it has been exercised in the past in the Post Office, but, to my mind, it is inevitable that, as long as the Post Office is a Government Department, you should have Treasury control. I agree that you might perhaps do a good deal by having within the Post Office an internal finance department, such as you have in the War Office. The Post Office has such an internal finance department, but it is not developed to the same ex-
tent. I am quite prepared to agree with my hon. Friend that perhaps you might get an improvement in that way, but even in the War Office you are subject to Treasury control at every turn, and that control is inevitable as long as the Post Office remains a Government Department.
That is one of the considerations which led me to the belief—and here I am afraid that I part company with my hon. Friend —that the only way to make the Post Office quite self-contained with regard to finance, the only way to treat it as it ought to be treated, as a business, was to place it outside the control of the Treasury and of Parliament altogether and to make it a public utility service. I tried to get the Bridgeman Committee to do that, but when I approached the Bridgeman Committee, I felt very much in the position of the parson who tried to persuade the farmer to go to church on Ascension Day. He said, "Come along with me; it is only half-a-mile to the church." The farmer said, "All right, I will come with you, but I will stop halfway when you get to the 'Blue Pig'" That is what Lord Bridgeman did. He stopped half-way, and if you stop halfway you are inevitably landed in some form of Treasury control. The Postmaster-General could not be entrusted to spend this fund absolutely without reference to the Treasury, because he might get into commitments which would cost the Treasury a great deal of money.
Let me take an extreme case. Supposing the Postmaster-General said, "I am going to spend this money in introducing penny postage," the result of that would be a very large deficit in his estimate next year. The proposal for which he had £1,000,000 available would be found to have cost £6,000,000 and the remaining £5,000,000 would inevitably have to come out of the Treasury. Therefore, although the instance I have taken is an absurd one, it is equally true that any use which the Postmaster-General makes of these funds might possibly land the Treasury in some amount of money. Therefore it is inevitable that the Treasury should be consulted. The hon. Member says that you must trust the Postmaster-General. If we always had this Postmaster-General I should be prepared to trust him, but Postmasters-General change so frequently, and we do not know who his successor will be. The trouble about the
Postmaster-General is that by the time he gets thoroughly acquainted with his job, he is generally moved on to somewhere else. He is either promoted, like Pharaoh's chief butler or else, like Pharaoh's chief baker, something else happens to him.
Therefore, while I sympathise entirely with the hon. Gentleman in his desire to get rid of Treasury control of the Post Office, I think as long as it is a Government Department, and as long as the solvency of the Post Office is a factor in the National Budget, some form of Treasury control is inevitable, but I do hope the Postmaster-General will be able to assure the Committee to-night that he has an understanding with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Treasury control which is to be exercised in regard to this fund is not to be of the pettifogging sort to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. There was a time not so long ago when the Post Office could not buy motor cycles with a sidecar attachment without going to the Treasury. That is not the sort of control that we want for the Post Office Fund, and I hope the Postmaster-General will be able to assure us that this control will be exercised in a broad and general way, and will not take the form of the Treasury trying to do the work of the Post Office.

9.29 p.m.

Major HILLS: I find myself largely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. I agree with him that a new epoch is opening in the Post Office. I might say, in passing, that a large part of the credit for that ought to be attributed to my Noble Friend who has just spoken, who started the education and upon that arose the Bridgeman Report. I think there is a middle course which, I hope, will be adopted. I would ask the Mover of the Amendment whether he cannot distinguish between financial control and business control? I do not think the Treasury is the proper body for business control. It is admirable for a spending department, but not for a money-producing department or a business department. The real question is, who is to be the predominant partner in business? I hope that will be my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, because in business he ought not to be beneath the Treasury. He ought to be
in charge of the business and responsible to this House. The financial system in the War Office, alluded to by the Mover of the Amendment, is quite worth following up. There you have an accounting officer who is largely in charge of the finances of that great Department. He is responsible to the Treasury, but very largely he is trusted by the Treasury to control the finances of the Department and to keep economy in view.
I should like to see the same sort of system prevail in the Post Office. The Treasury does not interfere in the organisation or management of the Army, and yet the finances of the Army are run on an economical scale. Could not we evolve some system of that sort, with accounting officers in the Post Office, or perhaps a special accounting officer for the Post Office Fund, responsible for the economical administration of the fund, and yet have the business side of the Post Office—an immense side which we all want to see prosper—in the hands of the Postmaster-General and the civil servants under him? I believe that is the right way. I do not think we shall ever get a public utility company. I am afraid the forces against that are too strong, but we might get something enormously valuable in a business management inside the Post Office, with a trained staff under the Postmaster-General, and each part of the economical administration looked after by an accounting officer in the Post Office and with Treasury control over that. But the business side would be run by the Postmaster-General with ultimate responsibility to this House.

9.34 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I did hope that my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, and who has been a Financial Secretary, would take his argument a little further, and then I should not have had to trouble the Committee with these few remarks. I think the way this arrangement has been made cuts right to the root of the constitutional privilege and practice of this House. Here are we, the House of Commons, dealing with the control of the spending of money. I disagree with my hon. Friend opposite in his view that we should abolish the control of the Treasury. Having been in the Treasury myself, I know that the officials of the Treasury
do see that money is not wasted, as far as they can,. They may be wrong and their policy short-sighted, but they certainly take care of the public money. Now we are going to part with £1,000,000 a year to the Post Office. It is a serious thing to do that even if the Postmaster-General is as able as we think he is or as honest as we hope he is. No Member of the House and no member of the Public Accounts Committee has any power to review how that money is to be spent.

Major HILLS: Oh, yes.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: What the Public Accounts Committee can do is to see that the Comptroller and Auditor-General reports to us that nothing has been done illegally. He can tell us that no money has been spent out of the amount which the Postmaster-General has to disburse in any dishonest or improper way, or in any way which is not in accord with the Act; but he will not have any right or power to tell the Committee how the money has been spent or in what direction so as to give the Public Accounts Committee the opportunity to review what has been done, and, if they think proper, to report to the House of Commons.
I am not going to support the Amendment, because it would take away the last vestige of protection for the public purse which we have. We have parted with the control of the House in Clause 30, and I regret it very much. I have listened to many Debates on this subject. We discussed the other day the voting of £350,000,000 to the Exchange Equalisation Account, and I regret very much that the House of Commons has parted with control there. This House in years past and the whole country fought for the control of authority over public money, but here we are, bit by bit, parting with that control for which the country fought. In spite of the correction of my right hon. and gallant Friend, I am certain that the House of Commons as a House of Commons has parted with the control and the power of revising and examining the way this Post Office Fund is spent, and we have parted with the right of reviewing the policy of the Post Office so far as that expenditure is concerned.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I would not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel). If he is pleading for the retention of Treasury control on the ground that it has worked in the past, I am definitely at issue with him.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I am prepared to put up with Treasury control because we are parting with House of Commons control, but I would rather have House of Commons control.

Mr. BEAUMONT: The reply of the hon. Member does not affect my argument. We have fought for the control of the House of Commons and have abandoned it to the Treasury. The net result has been that our expenditure has gone up and up. The present system of control over finance by the Treasury has not, I submit, been an adequate control over public funds. If I have to choose between the control by my right hon. Friend, in whom, unlike the hon. Baronet, I have considerable confidence, and control by Treasury officials, who have sanctioned the squandering of public money as it has been squandered in the last 11 years, I will plump for control by my right hon. Friend.

9.40 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: May I recall to the Committee what the proposal and the Amendment before the Committee are, and make one or two general observations on the speeches which have been made, some of which, in the interests of the Treasury and the Post Office, I must correct. We are proposing to set up a Post Office Fund and we are discussing to what purposes that fund shall be devoted, and whether, when the Postmaster-General comes to a decision as to the purposes to which it shall be devoted, he shall obtain the concurrence of the Treasury. That is the issue, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) has moved the deletion of the words "with the concurrence of the Treasury." I must call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Bridgeman Committee, which made this proposal, said:
The approval of the Government of the day or, at any rate, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be required as to the specific application of the fund from time to time.
So my first observation is that in this matter we are carrying out the recommendation of the Bridgeman Committee. Of course, that is not conclusive. It is the opinion of three eminent men, and we cannot allow the matter to remain simply on that opinion. But it is a matter of ordinary financial prudence that the Postmaster-General of the day should in fact obtain the concurrence of the Treasury in the allocation of what might be a considerable sum of money. As my Noble Friend has reminded the Committee, obviously the Treasury or the Exchequer would be anxious to know what the Postmaster-General might propose, for this is a matter which might affect the Exchequer itself; and it is following out every reasonable financial principle that the Postmaster-General should obtain that concurrence. If I have to deal with this fund, I shall very much welcome the opportunity of going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and obtaining his concurrence to my proposals. The suggestion of the fund was only brought before the House a few days ago, but already suggestions from every quarter are coming to the Postmaster-General as to what shall be done with it. The advocates of penny post, people who want cheaper telegrams, those who want the telephone charges reduced, and those who want increased wages have approached the Postmaster-General even before the fund is in being.
Therefore, I think that it may be of considerable help to the Postmaster-General to be able to consult the higher financial authority in that matter. I have no doubt that any Chancellor of the Exchequer of whatever party will be very glad to be consulted, and every Postmaster will be glad to be able to say that he has obtained the concurrence of the Chancellor in the allocation of the fund. I want to make a further observation in view of the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham, who tells us that he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury at one time. It is incorrect to say that the setting up of this fund in any way interferes with Parliamentary control or with the position of the Treasury. Parliamentary control remains as it did before the proposal to set up the fund was put forward in this Bill. It makes no difference one way or the other. For instance, the Capttal expendi-
ture which the Postmaster-General is permitted to carry out is laid down by Statute, and he is bound by it. The Statute is unaffected by any proposals in this Bill. The expenditure of the Post Office will appear in the Estimates, and the Postmaster-General cannot exceed them, and if he does he will have to come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate. That applies whether there is a Post Office Fund or not. There is not the slightest foundation for any suggestion that the setting up of this fund in any way interferes with the position of Parliament under the present arrangement. I will now give way to my hon. Friend.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy. He says this makes no difference. Will he tell us specifically how, when and where the details of the expenditure will come before the House of Commons and be under the control of the House?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think my hon. Friend has conceived how the fund will work. In most cases the Postmaster-General of the day will not wait until the fund has, we will say, £1,000,000 or £1,500,000. He will anticipate the state of the fund. He will go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards the end of the year and say, "There is no doubt that there will be in this fund at the end of the year, say, well over £1,000,000. I propose to deal with the fund in one of three ways." He could deal with it by way of Capttal commitments, in which case he is bound, of course, by the Act of Parliament, and therefore the House of Commons has supreme authority there, because he is not allowed to exceed the sum authorised. On the other hand he could say, "I am going to reduce charges." That he must do with the concurrence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so the position there is in no way altered. Thirdly, he might say, "I will make some improvement in the services," and he is equally bound in that respect not to exceed his Estimates. If he does want to exceed his Estimates by some expenditure from the fund he has again to come before the House of Commons with a Supplementary Estimate, and to claim the approval of the House. Therefore, in all three instances there is no doubt that Parliamentary control is fully secured. I wanted to say this because I did not want anyone to go away
from the Committee with the idea that there was some proposal in this Bill by which we had diminished Parliamentary control so far as this proposal is concerned.
While I am greatly in sympathy with much that has been said to-night by all who have spoken about the necessity of running the Post Office as far as possible on business lines, we ought, when asking for that, to be careful what we are asking the Postmaster-General of the day to do. Are we to say to him that he ought to treat Post Office business as the American cable companies do, giving a preference to big business? There is not a Member in the House who would support that policy. Are we going to say to the Postmaster-General of the day: "Your concern is such a business concern that you ought to devote yourself to your best customers and give no concession to people whose business with you is un-remunerative"? If we adopted that proposal we should wipe out, in the first place, a tremendous number of rural telephone subscribers up and down the country. People who demand by business management the sort of management that applies to a good many industrial concerns up and down the country should remember that the Post Office is bound to have regard to other circumstances. When it is said, also, that the Post Office ought to be divorced from Parliament is it certain that we could safely do that? The Post Office is a great national institution. It has many branches beside the telephone, telegraph and postal services. Are we going to suggest, a thing which has happened in no country in the world, that the great postal service should be handed over to some institution which would not be under the authority of Parliament? I cannot conceive that being done, apart altogether from other reasons in relation to business.
And so in connection with the Treasury control. Do not let us be hurried about the proposal to do away entirely with Treasury control. Would not the Treasury exercise a very reasonable influence on the Post Office in the discus-

sions on this financial policy. Could it not help a great deal in that connection? I agree entirely that day-to-day Treasury control, which in so many respects has been exercised quite unnecessarily, I think, in the past, ought to go, and I am glad to be able to take this opportunity of telling the Committee, though this is not the occasion when I can go into it in detail, that following an arrangement arrived at between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself we have been able to carry out another important reform so far as the Post Office is concerned. We have arranged a much more reasonable association between the Treasury and the Post Office than has hitherto existed. I am entirely at one with what my Noble Friend has said: the old system was the growth of years. In many respects it has not, we will say, done a great deal of harm to the Post Office, but it has meant delays and it has meant waste of labour and I am now glad to say that we have now arrived at a very fair arrangement, I think, between the Treasury and the Post Office by which the Post Office will be much more free.

But in attaining that measure of freedom I do not wish it to be inferred that I think that a national institution like the Post Office should be divorced from Parliament, or that it should be separated from the proper influence of the Treasury in a matter of this kind. I. hope the Committee will forgive me for going a little out of my way to make that statement to-night. I suggest to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that it will be a healthy thing for the Treasury to have a voice in any division that may be made of the Post Office Fund, and for me to obtain their concurrence, because they are vitally interested in the manner in which this money is disposed of. I think it will be of great value to any Postmaster-General of the day in deciding how he applies the surplus.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 43.

Division No. 210.]
AYES.
[9.53 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Aske, Sir Robert William
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Alexander, Sir William
Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hales, Harold K.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pike, Cecil F.


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Potter, John


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Hanley, Dennis A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Blindell, James
Harbord, Arthur
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Boulton, w. w.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Pybus, Percy John


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rankin, Robert


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ray, Sir William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rea, Walter Russell


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hornby, Frank
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Horobin, Ian M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Burghley, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Burnett, John George
Howard, Tom Forrest
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Butler, Richard Austen
Howitt, Dr. Altred B.
Robinson, John Roland


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Iveagh, Countess of
Runge, Norah Cecil


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Carver, Major William H.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, C.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salt, Edward W.


Clarke, Frank
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Clarry, Reginald George
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kimball, Lawrence
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Law, Sir Alfred
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Conant, R. J. E.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cook, Thomas A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Scone, Lord


Cooke, Douglas
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lewis, Oswald
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Liddall, Walter S.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Craven-Ellis, William
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Smithers, Waldron


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Cross, R. H.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crossley, A. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Soper, Richard


Davison, sir William Henry
MeKeag, William
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, John Hamilton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Dickie, John P.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Donner, P. W.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spens, William Patrick


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Stanley, Hon. O.F. G. (Westmorland)


Drewe, Cedric
Maitland, Adam
Stevenson, James


Ellis, sir R. Geoffrey
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stones, James


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Storey, Samuel


Elmley, Viscount
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sutcliffe, Harold


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tate, Mavis Constance


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Milne, Charles
Thompson, Luke


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morrison, William Shepherd
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moss, Captain H. J.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Munro, Patrick
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Gibson, Charles Granville
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Gledhill, Gilbert
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Glossop, C. W. H.
North, Edward T.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Gluckstein, Louie Halle
Nunn, William
Warrender, Sir Victor A. S.


Goff, Sir Park
O'Connor, Terence James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Goldie, Noel B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Cower, Sir Robert
Palmer, Francis Noel
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Greene, William P. C.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Pearson, William G.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Grimston, R. V.
Peat, Charles U.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Penny, Sir George
Young, Rt. Hon.Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Perkins, Walter R. D.



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pickering, Ernest H.
Mr. Womersley and Major George Davies.




NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Nathan, Major H. L.


Buchanan, George
John, William
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dobble, William
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.



Grundy, Thomas W.
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 20, line 24, to leave out from the word "or," to the end of line 27, and to insert instead thereof the words:
for making such augmentations in the wages of the employés of the Post Office and such additions to their amenities and improvements in their conditions of service as the Postmaster-General may, after consultation with the representatives of the staff associations, decide.
The Clause that we propose to amend sets out the special way in which the Post Office net surplus is to be dealt with, and it deals with the establishment and the application of the Post Office Fund. In Sub-section (4) there is this provision:
Subject to the following provisions of this section, the moneys in the Post Office Fund may he applied from time to time, as the Postmaster-General with the concurrence of the Treasury thinks fit, either for developing, according to estimates approved by the Treasury, the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems.
We want to insert words that will bring in the employés of the Post Office. Subsection (4) deals with the mechanical side, but no mention is made of the human side. We are attempting, in this Amendment, to bring in what, from our point of view, is the most vital part of the Post Office. We think that some regard ought to be paid to the position of Post Office servants, and we want some of the surplus to be used for that purpose. Hon. Members may think that Post Office employés are doing very well indeed. When we go into a Post Office, or use the telephone, we are sometimes treated with scant courtesy by the employés, and we begin to think that they are very well off and that they have a special job which gives them the privilege of telling us off from time to time. Most hon. Members have had experience of that. Probably the employés do not
mean anything by it. They may be like some of us who, in ordinary life, get rubbed up the wrong way, and they take it out of the next person who comes along, although it may be somebody who is trying to help their cause.
Of the Post Office employés 23,000 receive less than 40s. per week in salary. They are full-time, adult men and women. When I think of the low wages that they get, I can well understand that they get annoyed from time to time, especially when they know that we are Members of Parliament, and they think that we are not doing our duty. So we are trying to provide not only for improving the Post Office system, but for some advantage to be given to the servants of the Post Office. This is a National Government. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am encouraged by those cheers, because they lead me to believe that hon. Members will give attention to these servants. We claim that we are the sole champions of these people. We may not be right in that claim. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I accept those cheers again. They mean that we are not the sole champions-Very well. Hon. Members will say to us "We agree with you. When a surplus is made by the Post Office some of it should be used for the dual purpose of improving the Post Office service and giving the Post Office servant a decent standard of life." When we make a profit out of a State service our first thought ought to be for the employé of that service. I am glad that I have got so much attention for my appeal, and when the Amendment goes to a Vote I hope that hon. Members opposite will support it.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I wish to support the Amendment. The object is to give power
to the Postmaster-General not only to develop the Post Office system but to pay some regard to the employés in the service. There is no disguising the fact that the postal service of this country is a great institution. Perhaps it is one of the finest in the world. But at the same time there are being paid to certain classes of employés wages which are almost a scandal to the country. My hon. Friend referred to the ordinary workers. I wish to refer to the auxiliary postmen. Many Members of the House who represent county constitutencies know the difficulties and the low wages under which many of these auxiliary postmen work. There are 13,600 auxiliary postmen working an average of 26 hours a week and receiving about 25s. to 26s. for their work. I hope no one in the House will say that that is an adequate wage for the services performed. Quite recently there was a conference of Post Office workers in the Isle of Man, and the newspapers gave a good deal of publicity to some of the statements that were made. One was made by an auxiliary postman as follows:
I am an auxiliary postman earning 19s. weekly; married with three children; the Postmaster will not dismiss me, the public assistance committee will not help me, as they refuse to subsidise Post Office wages. I am destitute. Cannot anything be done?
These cases could be multiplied many times over. At this time of the night I have no desire to prolong discussion, but I do want the Postmaster-General to have some regard to this class of employé. Such a wage is totally inadequate for the responsible work that these men have to do. Therefore, we say that the Post Office Fund should not be devoted merely to development purposes, but that the Postmaster-General should have some power to augment the wages of the various classes of Post Office employés.

10.11 p.m.

Sir. K. WOOD: Perhaps I might say a word first on the object of this Clause, especially so far as it concerns the matters raised by the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. Sub-section (4) says that:
Subject to the following provisions of this Section, the moneys in the Post Office Fund may be applied from time to time, as the Postmaster-General with the concurrence of the Treasury thinks fit, either by developing, according to estimates approved by the
Treasury, the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems, or as appropriations-in-aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office (including telegraphs and telephones):
So far as the latter part is concerned, I have obtained a statement which I think will put the matter a little more plainly. If the fund is to be used to provide an appropriation-in-aid the effect will be either to avoid a deficit in the contribution to the Exchequer or to enable improvements in future to be carried out earlier than they otherwise might be, for instance an improvement in the wages of the Post Office staff concerned. If the arbitration court awarded the Post Office servant such a sum as would not otherwise be available, the fund, of course, would have to bear its proportionate part.
As regards wages generally in the Post Office, and the question of a portion of the surplus being devoted to the staff, I have no desire to contravene or to comment upon the statement as to the conditions of the Post Office staff. I have to work with them and I have great admiration for them, but I have to carry out my work, as my predecessors did, under certain rules and regulations, and the first is that wages in the Post Office are governed by the same standard as applies to civil servants as a whole. The Post Office is a Government Department. and you cannot have it both ways. The staff, of course, have the advantage of being civil servants, and they have certain benefits. They have their pensions. I do not say that from the point of view of desiring to minimise their efforts, but I have to say that because many a man to-night would give anything if he could feel secure when he went home, and know that everything would be well with him for the rest of his days. We must not minimise that side of the matter. It is one of the advantages obtained from being a member for the Civil Service, and it is an advantage which is shared by the Post Office with the rest of the Civil Service.
Therefore, as my predecessor told them, and as I have told them, they are bound, when they are in the Civil Service, by the same conditions which obtain in other Government establishments, their scales of wages and conditions are determined by the different councils, and behind them, of course, stands the Industrial
Court. The new financial arrangements do not preclude an increase in wages under Civil Service procedure, and if, by one method or another, they should obtain an increase, the ordinary operations of Civil Service procedure would follow, and, in certain events, it would be possible to have recourse to the fund. But I would warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that there are two views in the Post Office on this matter. One of them has been expressed to quite recently, and I can sympathise with it. As the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), my predecessor, will remember, Mr. O'Don-nell, who has had some influence in. Post Office affairs, said the other day, in reference to the Post Office workers' claim to be entitled to a share of the profits:
We see reports as to the size of the Post Office profit, but what has this to do with the wages of the workers? What is Po6t Office profit, and what is over-taxation? You may take the view that Post Office profit is simply over-taxation, and, if it is over-taxation, the over-taxation should go back again to the people who paid it.
That is Mr. O'Donnell's view, not mine. He goes on to say:
Why should the telegraph staff get lower rates of pay because their Service shows a deficit, and not a profit? Is the telegraph deficit any more true or untrue than that the Post Office surplus is a profit? To talk about surplus in relation to wages is to pursue a false train.
That is the view of a member of the executive of the Postal Workers' Union, who has, or has had, some influence in Post Office affairs; and I may say that it is not a view that is peculiar to him, but is shared by a large number of Post Office workers—that it is not doing them a service to say that their wages should be in any way bound up with the question whether the Post Office makes a surplus or not, or, in other words, that they should have a fair wage whether there is a surplus or not. I am rather inclined to think that that, from their point of view, is a better argument to put forward than to say that they are entitled to a certain proportion of this surplus, because, after all, there is a good deal to be said for the view that it is a matter of over-taxation. A good many people are interested in this question; there are some 230,000 employés in the Post Office; and I do not want them to think that I am endeavouring to do anything that is in
any way unfair so far as they are con-concerned. I do not want to raise a controversial point, but, when the hon. Gentleman opposite talks about being the champion of the workers, I must point out that the last reduction in Post Office workers' wages was made by the last Labour Government—

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken; it was made after I left the Post Office. It was not. done in my time, but in the time of the right hon. Gentleman who is now First Commissioner of Works.

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid my hon. Friend is not correct. I am not pressing this point, I hope, unduly, but the Leader of the Opposition will correct me if I am wrong—

Mr. LANSBURY: About what?

Sir K. WOOD: About what I am going to say. I am saying this because I should not like the Post Office workers to think that there is any attitude on the part of myself or of this Government such as has been suggested to-night. I am simply recording the fact that the last cut that was made in Post Office workers' wages was made by the last Labour Cabinet. That is a fact. I can give the date if necessary.

Mr. LANSBURY: You want me to confirm it?

Mr. ATTLEE: I have had the point put to me. I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that by whomever this was made it was not made while I was Postmaster-General and it never came before me.

Sir K. WOOD: I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman. He would not decide that matter as Postmaster-General, nor should I. The question of Civil Service remuneration is decided by the Cabinet as a whole, because it affects the whole of the Civil Service. I am not saying that it was the hon. Gentleman's decision, but I repeat that the last cut that was made in the salaries of the Post Office and other civil servants was made by the last Labour Government. I say that, not by way of reproach, but because statements are made which put me in a rather difficult position, having to deal with a very large staff. At any rate, I
hope that, after the explanation that I have given, the Committee will realise that a reasonable course has been taken in the matter both from the point of view of the Post Office staff and the people who provide the money to pay their wages.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: We need not worry ourselves about what the late Government did or the opinions of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). What I am considering is what the National Government are going to do in regard to this Amendment. [Interruption.] You were Members of that Government and you have taken your share in it the same as anyone else. Take your share in the business to-night the same as other Members and listen to the Amendment. The proposal is that, when this fund is set up, certain officials who do the work should get remuneration out of the surplus. No matter what past Governments have done, is there anyone who will dispute that, where honesty is expected, you will pay wages to the workers sufficient to keep them? We have 13,607 auxiliary postmen and, no matter whose fault it is that they have not been properly remunerated, the fact remains that you are setting up a fund which can be manipulated either to give better benefits to those who use the Post Office or to the workers within the Department. I remember various cases at the Assizes at Liverpool where auxiliary postmen have been tried, and not only have they been reprimanded, but severe penalties have been inflicted upon them. The judge, in passing sentence, has remarked that they were in Government positions where their responsibility was great. They were asked to be true, loyal and honest servants at 18s., 19s. and 20s. a week. Is it to be said by the hon. Member for Gorbals or anyone else that, if there have been mistakes in the past, a National Government with so large a Majority ought not to be able to remedy them?
No matter what Government may be in power, it is the duty of the House to see that civil servants are given adequate pay. I put it to hon. and right hon. Members that it is indisputable that servants of any Department should have a right to receive proper pay when such a Department has a surplus exceeding
£10,000,000 per annum. I am not concerned with the reduction of the cost of postage stamps when the men engaged on postal work are not receiving a living wage. The first call upon any hon. Member of the House of Commons, whether he is a member of the National Government or the Labour party, is to see that the servants of the Government are properly protected. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has put up a strong case. The National Government ought to be strong enough to get rid of the abuses of the past, and bring in something which is of benefit to the workers. The nation has no right to have men working in responsible positions at a rate of 18s. or 20s. a week. No adult ought to be called upon to carry on a responsible job unless he is adequately paid. I think that a fair case has been made out that if any additional money is to be spent out of a fund the worker should receive first consideration. The postal service to-day is a slave service. It is an insult to the intelligence of the people that a Civil Service should be maintained at slave rates. We ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should not have risen hut for the fact that I and not the Government have been indicted by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. LOGAN: The hon. Member can take it that way if he likes.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have perfect freedom and can speak. Hon. Members in the Labour party cannot have it all their own way. I was a trade union candidate for nine years in this House and I have been prepared to forfeit my Labour party candidature rather than my independence and that of my constituents. I have done that so as to be able to assert my rights here. Anyone with no income except his Parliamentary salary, who gives up his trade union candidature for his principles has a right to state his case. I have given up my trade union candidature, and I am the only one in this House who has done it. I do not claim virtues, but it shows that at least I have some principles to which I am prepared to hold. When one voluntarily gives up the candidature of his union, of which he is chairman, he has some reason for saying that he has
principle behind him. The facts are on record and cannot he disputed that the last Government did reduce the wages of Post Office workers, and it is not sufficient for the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool to say that it does not matter what other Governments did. That would be possible if we were living in a rational world, but he must know that his party asked me to sign a document that I would vote with the party for reduced wages, and sooner than sign that document I left them.
The hon. Member says that we are not concerned with the past but with trying to get justice done for an unfortunate set of men and women who have not been properly treated; but he must be aware, every politician must be aware, that we get into this House by attacking the records of other Governments in the past. I have done it. In 1922 I tore the record of the Coalition Government to pieces. Everybody does it, and no one can really say that what we are doing now has no relation to the past. I remember when two former Members of this House, Mr. W. J. Brown and Mr. Bowen, pleaded with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Labour Government of that day not to reduce wages. I heard them plead in private not to do it, but it was done. They were not asked to resign. It was a terrible thing. There are worse conditions than those of the postmen. What about the cleaners? I have been in correspondence with cleaners in the Post Office who were working for less than 25s. a week, but they were reduced in their wages.
The Postmaster-General says that wages ought to be paid apart from the question of profit and loss. That is true. The right hon. Gentleman is an expert politician and takes advantage of opportunities. We must take the Parliamentary machine as we find it, and we know that there is a huge surplus profit at the Post Office. When you are establishing a fund it is at least open to argument that it should be partly for the benefit of men and women who are grossly underpaid; and the Postmaster-General has not answered that point. He has put up the philosophic case that wages should not be ruled by profits. If we were starting de novo it might be true to say that wages should be paid
according to the needs of the men and women who are employed; but we are not doing that. We are discussing a surplus which is to be utilised for the development of the Post Office, and we say that one of the essential developments of the Service is to see that the staff is properly paid, because you do not secure a proper return for the money that is spent unless you pay properly the engine which has to carry it on; that is the men and women who are employed.
I support the Amendment. When the Raspberry Order was being promoted in this House we. said that it ought not to go through unless there was attached to it a guarantee of wages and conditions to the men and women engaged in the industry, and whoever represents working people must deal with those cases where men and women are grossly underpaid. Who does not at times feel ashamed when they read of a postman being prosecuted for pilfering and see the wage he is paid? I sometimes wonder whether the employers ought not to be in the dock rather than the poor victim of the system. There was a case in the City of Glasgow the other day of a postman who was prosecuted, and who was receiving a disgraceful wage considering the responsibilities of his daily task. This is a reasonable Amendment. Part of the surplus ought to be devoted to seeing that the servants of the Post Office, who are as important as any development, are propertly rewarded for their services. The Post Office is an efficient machine, and does its work with every credit. You have loyal service, and you should take away the one main blot which is upon it at the moment, and that is the low wages which are paid to decent men and women.

10.38 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I agree largely with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and we are, of course, delighted that he is going to support the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You did not support me on raspberries.

Sir S. CRIPPS: On that question we differed from the hon. Member, and he is entitled to his opinions just as I am to mine. I think the Committee remembers the incident to which the Post-
master-General referred. I think he was referring to the general reduction of Civil Service wages, in accordance with the cost-of-living bonus figure made in the second year of the Labour Government. In the first year it did not operate; it was held up. In the second year, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was already frightened by the bankers in the way which led to catastrophe later on, he refused to continue the remission which he had granted in the first year. Whether the decision was wise or foolish I do not propose to argue now. What I wish to say is in relation to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He quoted as an authority a Mr. O'Donnell with whom I am afraid I am not acquainted. No doubt he is a very high authority and he appears to have great influence over the right hon. Gentleman. I think his argument was a rather poor one if I may say so. Mr. O'Donnell's view is that these wages with which we are dealing should be higher in any case, irrespective of whether there is a surplus or not. Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to agree with him on that point because he has done nothing to bring that about.
Here is the opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman can now for the first time bring pressure to bear on the Treasury to allow him to increase out of this special fund, the wages in some of these very hard cases quite apart from the general level of Civil Service wages. Auxiliary postmen are not, I understand, on the Civil Service basis at all. Theirs are particular wages paid by the Post Office, and, with regard to those, we suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might take power to grant something out of this money. I beg him seriously to think that there is Very often a psyschological effect in these matters which is important. Here we have a Clause purporting to allocate this surplus. The right hon. Gentleman I am sure is highly concerned with the welfare of the Post Office employés and desires to help them. But think of Parliament passing a Clause which intended to show the lines upon which the surplus is to be applied and omitting all mention of the possibility of applying the fund to the alleviation of these hard cases.
There is also the important question of amenities, improvements in conditions of service, accommodation and all the rest of it. I am sure that in many cases the right hon. Gentleman will want to make improvements in these respects in the interests of the efficiency of the service and the comfort of the employés. He will not be able to do it unless he puts some words such as we propose into the Clause. The Clause lays down the only purposes for which the surplus may be used. If words covering those services are not included, it will be illegal to spend any of this surplus upon such services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because once you condescend, in a Clause such as this, to state purposes for which a fund may be used, you are not allowed to go outside those purposes in the expenditure of the fund without fresh authority in Parliament.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Supposing it was decided by the Postmaster-General, after consultation with the regular authorities, to raise the wages of auxiliary postmen, could not that be done even if these words were not in the Clause?

Sir S. CRIPPS: Not as I read it. The purposes for which the Postmaster-General is entitled to use the money are:
for developing, according to estimates approved by the Treasury, the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems, or as appropriations in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office.
That is not a question of increasing wages. The only object and the only purpose that can be effected by those latter words is to enable the right hon. Gentleman to anticipate expenditure in cases where there is likely to be a deficit. It will not entitle him to spend more money on wages for auxiliary postmen or on amenities and improvements for the Post Office employés, and unless he has authority to spend money out of this fund for those purposes, if he wants to do so, he will have to come to Parliament again in order to get the authority. He may, of course, put those purposes in his ordinary Estimates, to be covered by his ordinary expenditure, but the ordinary expenditure is not being dealt with here. This is an extraordinary fund, which is to be utilised in specific ways, with the concurrence of the Treasury. It is a special fund, set up
for special purposes, and the point that we desire to bring forward is that it is this special fund which the Postmaster-General should be entitled, if he wishes, to spend in increasing the wages of people not within the Civil Service scale and for making improvements in the conditions and amenities of his employés.
Unless the right hon. Gentleman puts in some words—we are not particular about the actual words—to show that he is alive to the possibility and is anxious that it should be included within his power, we believe that these powers will not cover that possibility, and that the right hon. Gentleman, with all the good will which we know he has towards his staff, will find himself prevented from spending this money on purposes which he would like because he has not got the authority from Parliament to do so. We therefore ask that the Committee should include these words, or, if the right hon. Gentleman tells us that at a later stage he will put in some other words to cover the same line of thought, we shall be content. Otherwise, we shall certainly vote in favour of the Amendment.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: As far as I see it, the carrying of this Amendment will not really add to the powers of the Postmaster-General in dealing with the needs of these people. If I were a servant of the Post Office, I would very much rather take my chance of an increase in wages to come out of the ordinary working of the Post Office than make it dependent upon a fund which, at the end of the year, may not exist. This very Clause contemplates that there may not be a margin and that there may be a loss, and some provision is made in the very next paragraph for that possibility. I think that a dis-service is being done in making the claims of these people, with whom I hope I am as sympathetic as anyone who has spoken on the other side of the House, dependent on it. That is my view, but if I could be shown to be wrong, I would vote for the Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The point is not that wages should be dependent upon this Fund, but that in cases such as those of the auxiliary postmen, who are not on the ordinary Civil Service scale and do not go up and down with Civil Service rates,
but whose wages are fixed specially by the Post Office, this fund, if they cannot get a rise from the ordinary sources, should be enabled to be used for that purpose, which otherwise it could not be.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am sorry if I did not follow that. I listened to the Postmaster-General and I would like to be assured on this point. If it is desired to increase the wages of the auxiliary postmen, is it necessary to carry this Amendment to secure those rights?

10.51 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I have already stated that as far as the conditions of wages and service in the Post Office are concerned they remain unaffected by these provisions, with one exception, to which I will refer in a moment. The civil servants, including the auxiliary postmen, may have their wages dealt with in one or other way. They may go to the Whitley Council or Arbitration Board and get a decision or their wages may be increased by the Postmaster-General himself. In that event, it would follow that the increase would come out of the ordinary income of the Post Office. There is this additional observation to be made, that if any addition to their wages was of such a nature as to put the fixed Exchequer contribution in peril, you would then be able to go to your Post Office Fund in aid of the award made. To that extent the Post Office servants are interested in the fund but as far as the auxiliary postmen or others are concerned it is my contention that their remuneration and the fairness or otherwise of their claim should not be dependent on the surplus but should be determined by bodies like the Whitley Council and the Arbitration Tribunal which are always operating. My own personal view is—and I am anxious to do the right thing—that they would far better look in that direction in connection with their remuneration and terms than to a fund which, after all, there are a good many arguments for saying is really taxation and which on some occasions might be a big fund and on others a small one.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: I would like to associate myself with the protest made against some of the wages paid, and I hope that one result of the Debate to-night— although I cannot support the Amend-
ment—will be that public opinion will be directed to that matter. In addition to the auxiliary postmen, I would ask hon. Members to inquire in the country-districts what is being paid in the villages to the local sub-postmaster. When I was informed of that I was ashamed of the Government's arrangements—not necessarily of this Government but any Government—and what was paid to the unfortunate proprietor of a sub-post office. With every sympathy for the declaration made on the other side, I think that the interests of those for whom such warm advocacy has been made can be left with the ordinary working of the Post Office.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: It has been definitely stated by the Postmaster-General that this particular fund is a special fund set up, and if this injustice is not remedied by the Whitley scale he has power to remedy it out of this particular fund. That is an assertion, and why should not hon. Members vote on an Amendment such as this seeing that this fund can be used for this particular purpose?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 380; Noes, 37.

Division No. 211.]
AYES.
[10.55 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Holdsworth, Herbert


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hornby, Frank


Albery, Irving James
Cross, R. H.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Alexander, Sir William
Crossley, A. C.
Horobin, Ian M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Howard, Tom Forrest


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Iveagh, Countess of


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Drewe, Cedric
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Elmley, Viscount
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Bik'pool)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Kimball, Lawrence


Blindell, James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Bossom, A. C.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Law, Sir Alfred


Boulton, W. W.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Gibson, Charles Granville
Liddall, Walter S.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gledhill, Gilbert
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Goff, Sir Park
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Browne, Captain A. C.
Goldie, Noel B.
Mabane, William


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Burghley, Lord
Gower, Sir Robert
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Burnett, John George
Graves, Marjorie
McCorquodale, M. S.


Butler, Richard Austen
Greene, William P. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
McKeag, William


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McKie, John Hamilton


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gritten, W. G. Howard
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Carver, Major William H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hales, Harold K.
Maitland, Adam


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Clarry, Reginald George
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Harbord, Arthur
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Conant, R. J. E.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cook, Thomas A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cooke, Douglas
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Milne, Charles


Craven-Ellis William
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Storey, Samuel


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Morrison, William Shepherd
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Sueter, Bear-Admiral Murray F.


Munro, Patrick
Robinson, John Roland
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Nail, Sir Joseph
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Tate, Mavis Constance


Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thompson, Luke


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


North, Edward T.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Nunn, William
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


O'Connor, Terence James
Salt, Edward W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Palmer, Francis Noel
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Peaks, Captain Osbert
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Pearson, William G.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Peat, Charles U.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Penny, Sir George
Scone, Lord
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Petherick, M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
White, Henry Graham


Pickering, Ernest H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Pike, Cecil F.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Potter, John
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Soper, Richard
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pybus, Percy John
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Womersley, Walter James


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Rankin, Robert
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ray, Sir William
Spens, William Patrick



Rea, Walter Russell
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stevenson, James
Captain Austin Hudson and Lord


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stones, James
Erskine.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, George Henry
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Nathan, Major H. L.


Buchanan, George
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobble, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John



Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 31 (Repayment of advances made to the Road Fund,) 32 (Reduction of Stamp Duty on statements as to Capttal of companies, etc.,) 33 (Effect of non-compliance with stamp laws in case of certain bills of exchange,) 34 (Reduction of rate of interest on Death Duties,) 35 (Reduction of rate of interest on Excess Profits Duty,) 36 (Date of operation of certain tables for calculating annuities,) 37 (Exercise of powers of Board of Trade under Act,) and 38 (Short title, construction, extent and repeals) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put and agreed to.— [Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.